Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at Seven o'Clock.

STANDING ORDERS (TABLE OF FEES)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That, as from 1st April next, the several Amendments to the Standing Order [27th July, 1864], relative to the Table of Fees to be charged at the House of Commons hereinafter stated in the Schedule to be made:
Table of Fees, page 263, line 9, leave out "£3 3s." and insert £3 18s. 9d.
Table of Fees, page 263, line 11, leave out "1s." and insert "1s. 3d.
This is to bring the fees into line with present-day rates, and has been agreed to by the Treasury.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDER PAPERS

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of order. I understand that there are not sufficient Order Papers, or there were not a moment or so ago, in the Vote Office for hon. and right hon. Members. I should like to be assured that copies are available for Members; otherwise we shall not know what Question is being put. If we were to have an explanation as to why the Order Papers were not available, that would be useful. I do not see why it should be owing to the late Sitting of the House. It is inconvenient if hon. Members cannot have an

Order Paper at the usual hour. Perhaps, you, Mr. Speaker, or the Leader of the House could give some information about it and tell us whether Order Papers are now available.

Mr. Speaker: I share the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. I had my own Order Paper only a short time ago. I understand that what has caused the delay is that those responsible for the Order Paper had to wait until the Sitting that has just terminated came to an end before they could publish the Orders of the Day and notices of Motion appearing on page 1604. Therefore, though my information is not yet complete, I understand that, to some extent at any rate, the delay is due to the long Sitting we have had yesterday and today.

Mr. H. Morrison: I should like to know what are the facts. I gather that some more supplies are available. If they are available for everybody now I raise no further point about it, if I can be so assured. If not, I suggest that the Sitting be suspended until Order Papers are available, otherwise it will be impossible to know what Question is being put.

Mr. Speaker: I understand they are now available, and if it is the wish of the House I am prepared to wait some minutes until hon. Members have had an opportunity of obtaining a copy.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not know anything more about this than does the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), but I understand that Order Papers are now available in the usual quantities in the usual places.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Surely the explanation given is no explanation with regard to the Questions. The Questions had been put down on the Order Paper long before yesterday, and there was ample opportunity for a list of Questions, at any rate, being printed apart from other matters that would normally appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. T. Driberg: Further to that point of order. Could we have three or four minutes extra at the end of Questions to make up for this delay?

Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the Standing Order on that matter. However, I shall use what discretion I can.


On the first point of order, I think the answer is that the whole Order Paper runs consecutively, and after Questions there appear notices of Motion and Orders of the Day. It was not until only a few hours ago, if that, that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which was down for Second Reading yesterday, was postponed till today. Until the fate of that Bill had been determined by that postponement, it was not possible to print a consecutive Order Paper.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I raised the matter, perhaps I should say that I think everybody will agree that I was on a real point affecting the general convenience of the House. I now understand that Order Papers are available. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, and I think my hon. Friends, we have no objection to business proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have a Petition to present to this honourable House on behalf of over 2,000 of Her Majesty's loyal subjects residing in and about the County Borough of Oldham in the County Palatine of Lancaster and mostly employed by Messrs. Pratt Brothers and Company, Limited, engineers, of Oldham.
The Petition briefly sets out to express the great indignation of the undersigned with regard to the proposed cuts in the National Health Service, the subject of the Bill which is being presented today. I think it probably right that I should inform you, Sir, and the House that this Petition was drawn up by the shop stewards and engineers employed by Pratt Brothers and Company, Limited, and that the Clerk at the Table has expressed a tentative view that it is not drawn with that nicety of expression and clarity of diction in which a Petition should be presented to this House.
But I have not, however, been able to find any rule which invalidates this

Petition on that ground. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to present it. I would add that I have made inquiries and I gather than there is no copy of Erskine May in the canteen of Messrs. Pratt Brothers and Company, Limited.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of this. The petitioners pray that the charges for the National Health Service benefits be rescinded. The Bill which authorises the charges is now before the House and is not yet a Statute. The charges can, therefore, not yet be rescinded. The petitioners could pray that the Bill be not passed, or if the Bill had been passed, they could pray for legislation to repeal it, but this Petition prays for something which it is not in the power of the House to grant, namely, that the House should reverse something which it has not yet done. For those reasons, I am of the opinion that the Petition is out of order.

Mr. Hale: May I venture respectfully to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the request that the charges should be rescinded contains a very clear implication that the House should be requested that the charges should not be imposed? This is a spontaneous expression of great indignation, strongly expressed throughout the County Borough of Oldham. Would it not be possible for me to deposit this Petition in the bag in the same way as petitions out of order are nevertheless permitted to be deposited?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I suggest that the charges against which this Petition is directed are those imposed by the Socialist Government last year?

Mr. Speaker: The fact in itself would not invalidate the Petition, but I think that the objection which I have mentioned—namely, that in the Petition we are asked to rescind some charges which are not yet made—is fatal to the Petition. If the hon. Member wishes to put his Petition in the bag, that can be done, but I cannot have it received by the House, because it is out of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREVENTIVE DETENTION (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to say by what date it will be possible for prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention to be accommodated in prisons exclusively for prisoners serving such sentences.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The Prison Rules do not require that prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention should be accommodated in prisons exclusively for prisoners serving such sentences, nor would such an arrangement be possible in the present serious shortage of prison accommodation suitable for long-term prisoners.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at Parkhurst, in particular, prisoners serving long-term normal sentences and sentences of preventive detention are accommodated in the same prison and they enjoy quite different privileges; that some have extensive privileges of association while others have different privileges of remission; and that this gives to the staff of the prison the very greatest difficulty in keeping order? It is a source of very real trouble, and to the prisoners themselves it is almost as exacerbating as an all-night Sitting.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It appears that by the end of this year the numbers of those in the second stage of preventive detention at Parkhurst will be such as to occupy the whole of the prison except for the accommodation reserved for special medical cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Thomas Kavanagh (Report from United States)

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional information he has obtained as the result of inquiries by the American police into the case of

Thomas Kavanagh; and, in the light of such information, what further action he is taking in this case.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I understand that the police have now received a report from the United States and that the facts have been laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In those circumstances, is the Home Secretary aware that, if necessary, I shall put another Question down when the result of this consideration is made known?

Housing Accommodation, London

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to provide improved housing accommodation for members of the Metropolitan Police Force.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate on the Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill, good progress is being made with the programme of providing accommodation for 4,000 married men. Progress is also being made with providing 4,000 up-to-date single men's quarters but accommodation for married men must take priority, and more than half of this programme remains to be completed.

Mr. Fletcher: May we gather from that reply that the Home Secretary is satisfied that this former hindrance to adequate recruitment in the Metropolitan Police is being dealt with?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is being dealt with, but—I think, like every Home Secretary—I should like it to be dealt with more quickly. Whenever that is possible, I shall do so.

Coronation Stone (Protection)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what duties the police officers, now employed on precautionary measures to prevent the removal of the Coronation Stone, were employed before being ordered to take up these duties; and what was their weekly salary.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Police officers employed on duties of this character would normally be drawn from those


employed on ordinary beat, patrol and protection duties. As they would change from day to day it would not be practicable to state in detail what their salaries were and in any event it would be undesirable to publish such details as would indicate the scale of precautionary measures which the Commissioner of Police may from time to time see fit to direct.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable perturbation in Scotland about the very big expense this may incur, and does he not agree that that expense would be unnecessary if the stone were removed to Scotland for safe keeping? Is he also aware that there is an elaborate electrical system installed in Westminster Abbey which makes people who closely inspect the stone get in touch with Scotland Yard, and that constituents of mine will not now go to Westminster Abbey for the quiet meditation for which it is noted?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry about the perturbation that arises in the breasts of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but I think that if these are the least of their worries, they are greatly to be congratulated.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind that there is considerable perturbation in the minds of those who move among the underworld of London concerning the precautions taken to protect the Crown Jewels also?

RECRUITMENT OF MEN TO THE POLICE SERVICE


—
December, 1951, to February, 1952
As at 29th February, 1952


Recruitment
Wastage
Increase (+) or decrease (-)
Authorised Establishments
Actual strengths
Deficiencies


Counties, Cities and Boroughs
1,215
564
+651
51,893
46,479
5,414


Metropolitan Police Force
…
295
189
+106
19,685
15,642
4,043


Total
…
…
…
1,510
753
+757
71,578
62,121
*9,457


Sunderland Borough Police Force
…
…
…
…
4
4
Nil
243
226
17


* Includes 304 seconded or serving overseas.

Recruitment

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on the progress that has been made in the recruitment of men to the police force; and whether he will give, separately, the figures for the county borough of Sunderland.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures as at 29th February, 1952, which, when compared with the figures as at 30th November, 1951, which I gave in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 6th December, 1951, show the progress which has been made during the last three months. During this period the total deficiencies have fallen from 10,216 to 9,457. In Sunderland, no progress has been made during this period but the deficiency is only 17 in an authorised establishment of 243, as compared with 30 on 1st August last.

Mr. Willey: While I am sure the House very much appreciates the progress which has been made, will the right hon and learned Gentleman consider accelerating that progress by giving further consideration, to the question of the physical standards at present required for members of the police force?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me his ideas, I shall be glad to consider them.

Following are the figures:

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the practice with regard to the exercise of a colour bar in recruitment for the Metropolitan Police Force.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is responsible for appointments to the Metropolitan Police Force, that, subject to the basic qualifications as to age, height, health and education which are laid down in the police regulations, all applications for appointment by British subjects are considered on their merits.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you, very much.

Crowd Control (Sports Events)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he is sending to the communication he has received from the Police Federation, expressing concern at the increasing difficulty of controlling large crowds at football matches and other sports events.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This communication, which was received on 18th March, is being carefully considered. A reply will be sent in due course.

Mr. Fletcher: What steps is the Home Secretary taking to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances which occurred outside the Arsenal Stadium last Saturday and Sunday, when there was not only considerable damage to property but also intolerable interference with the peace of the neighbourhood?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has Questions down on that disturbance, and I think it would be better if I dealt on them with the subject of the disturbance rather than at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend an alteration in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment which will enable it to publish an interim report or reports.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The terms of reference expressly provide that the Royal

Commission or any four or more members thereof may report from time to time if they judge it expedient so to do. I understand that the Royal Commission hope to present their report this summer.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember agreeing with me recently in the House that this is a matter of life and death, and that any differences which may be holding up the report should be resolved forthwith, or that, alternatively, separate reports ought to be issued in the public interest?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think it would be desirable to dictate to those who are serving on the Royal Commission. We hope to get the report very soon and then we shall be able to discuss it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (FILMS)

Mr. W. T. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a Borstal boy, aged 18, was taken under escort to see the film "A Street Car Named Desire" at Hull, Yorkshire, on or about 13th March; and if, in view of the sordid and degrading nature of this film, he will investigate the mental and moral qualifications of those charged with the administration of the institution in which this boy was detained.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is usual for selected senior boys in Borstal institutions to be allowed as a privilege to visit a cinema or other place of entertainment from time to time. At Hull the practice is for members of the staff who are visiting the cinema in their off-duty hours to be allowed to take with them two inmates who have qualified for this privilege. The choice of film in this particular case may have been unfortunate, but I do not think the incident calls for any further action on my part.

Mr. Driberg: A jolly good film.

Mr. Aitken: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say which official of the institution was responsible for taking this boy to see the film?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to make it clear that the boys pay for themselves out of their earnings. The privilege is much valued by those of the


special grade, and is a great incentive to raising the standard of work and conduct. I really do not think it is necessary for me to name the official concerned.

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are available for boys at Borstal institutes to see films either of an educational or recreational character.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Arrangements vary from one institution to another, but on average there is a programme of educational films about once a week and of recreational films about twice a month.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL VOTING

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to extend the facilities for postal voting to those electors who are away on holiday at the time of a General Election, and whose occupation limits the times when they are able to take holidays.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The suggestion made by my hon. Friend would not, I think, command universal approval. In any event, it would need legislation which I am not prepared to undertake now or in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are many, such as teachers, whose occupation may necessitate their holidays being planned some time ahead? Does he not agree that it is very unfair that they should lose the franchise?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Against that, I have to consider the whole position of those using the excuse of a holiday for not voting personally. It is obviously a very difficult question that would give rise to very difficult borderline cases, and I do not see that we can legislate on it.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that, in future, the form of application to be placed on the electoral register makes it clear that facilities for postal voting cannot be granted to those absent on holidays at the time of an Election.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOOKS (CENSORSHIP)

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will, in view of the large quantities of pernicious literature now being displayed for sale, take steps to set up a censorship for these kinds of books in order to remove from the magistrates' courts the responsibility of deciding whether a book is obscene and unfit for general sale.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware of the present danger of cases coming before a magistrates' court where two different sets of magistrates come to different decisions on the same kind of book?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the House will agree with me broadly that censorship, to be effective, must be authoritarian—that is, not open to challenge—and in this country that would be abhorrent. It is a dangerous institution which might be misused, and it is a clumsy and wasteful arrangement which is notoriously difficult to operate. There are several other reasons against it, but I think these are the main ones.

Mr. John Paton: May I ask the Minister if it is not the case that police regulations already provide all the powers that are necessary for the effective safeguards required?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the present system is sufficient to deal with the problem.

Mr. Ede: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if it is not a fact that any citizen can institute a prosecution in England and Wales where he believes a publication is obscene and detrimental to morals?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is the law as I understand it.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the books that have been brought before my court are being sold in most establishments in London.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to follow the advice of his right hon. Friend and institute proceedings.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Training Pamphlet

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the Civil Defence Manual of Basic Training, Volume I, Pamphlet No. 9, entitled, "Reconnaissance and Reporting," are being printed; and what is the total cost involved in its production.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am informed that 50,000 copies of this pamphlet have been printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office at a cost of £1,516 10s. 4d.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister realise that this pamphlet contains countless really fatuous remarks, one of which says that a building severely damaged by a bomb usually presents an appearance of complete chaos? Would he not agree that that kind of remark is about as superfluous as saying that Lord Woolton tells lies in an election campaign.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: I must ask for the withdrawal of that remark. It is not in order for hon. Members of one House to make imputations of that character about a noble Lord in another place.

Mr. Hamilton: I withdraw the word "lies" and substitute "grossly misleading statements."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, which is the only relevant part, I think that if any one of our speeches were to be subjected to having one sentence taken out of its context it might present the same somewhat platitudinous aspect; but I ask the hon. Member to read the whole of the pamphlet and to consider in a short time, when the sales of that pamphlet are determinable, how well it has gone and how much help it has given.

Mr. Hamilton: If the Minister will read it himself, he will find that there are numerous similar fatuous statements. Will he see to it that they do not occur in any future pamphlet of this description?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a few months ago, shortly before he went to

the Home Office, I sent a number of specimen pamphlets on Civil Defence to the Home Office asking urgently that they should be simplified because they contained so much verbose matter. The Home Office promised to do that. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into this matter and see that it is done in this case?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should certainly not like to argue with my hon. Friend on any question of verbosity. I shall certainly look into his point with great pleasure.

Leaflet (Peace Pledge Union)

Mr. E. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to a leaflet entitled "Civil Defence," published by the Peace Pledge Union; and as this leaflet is likely to cause a breach of the peace, what steps he proposes to take in respect of it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have seen this pamphlet. I am advised that its publication and circulation do not involve a breach of the law.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Home Secretary aware that this leaflet is a shameful pacifist attack to persuade the people of this country that Civil Defence is of no use? May I ask him whether, in view of the security aspect of this matter, he will consider whether it is reasonable that these people, who refuse to take part in the defence of the country themselves, should be allowed to incite other people to do the same thing?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am certainly prepared to go as far as to say again—which I think is the right way to deal with the point—that the suggestions in the pamphlet that nothing effective can be done in the face of atomic warfare are not only mischievous but entirely baseless and wrong. I have tried to indicate that in broadcasts and otherwise and although, as I have said, this does not involve a breach of the law, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the inaccuracies in the pamphlet.

Mr. James Hudson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account, when considering what is


charged to be the damage of these statements, that they are nothing like so damaging as the statements of the supplementary questioner in frequent speeches he used to make in this House about the Army Bill?

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider instituting proceedings to have these persons prosecuted for causing a public mischief.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not a prosecuting authority.

Radio-Activity (Measuring Instruments)

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made for the training of personnel of the Civil Defence and allied services in the use of equipment designed for measuring radio-activity after an atomic attack.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Training in the practical use of this equipment began a few weeks ago at the Civil Defence technical training schools. Production orders for the necessary training versions of the special "Radiac" instruments and of the radio-active sources, with their containers, which are required for purposes of demonstrating the instruments, were given last summer, and supplies under these orders are expected to be available later in the year. They include individual measuring instruments, with charging units; portable dose-rate meters, and contamination meters.
In the meantime, I am glad to be able to say that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, I have been able to make arrangements for small numbers of training instruments, including some pre-production models, together with the necessary radio-active sources, to be made available in advance of the main issues to a selected number of major authorities in key areas. These authorities will begin forthwith, in their own areas, training the personnel of the Civil Defence Corps, police and fire services, and other organisations associated with Civil Defence. Later in the year, this kind of training will be extended to the whole country as equipment becomes available.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that announcement will give very great satisfaction to the Civil Defence service?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (POLICE PROTECTION)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Ministers are provided with personal police protection; and what additions have recently been made to the number of such Ministers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 3rd December in reply to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), the Ministers who regularly receive police protection are the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Other Ministers may receive protection from time to time for special reasons but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the details.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of statements that have appeared in the Press, will the Home Secretary either confirm or deny that, as a result of a trip abroad, the Colonial Secretary is now receiving police protection?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir. I do not go beyond the last sentence of my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUARTER SESSIONS APPEAL COURTS (WOMEN MAGISTRATES)

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that on any appeals committee, dealing with cases coming from the juvenile courts, at least one of the magistrates shall be a woman.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Quarter sessions are required, in appointing members of appeal courts, to include, so far as practicable, justices specially qualified for dealing with juvenile cases, and I am sure that they can be relied on to use a wise discretion in this matter.
I have made some inquiries to ascertain whether women are in fact appointed to appeal committees, and I understand that the year books of quarter sessions in thirteen counties (including Leicester) show that all the appeal committees have women members. The average ratio of women to men is one to three.

Mr. Janner: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers it essential that there should be a woman sitting in a juvenile court when a case is tried, would he explain why it is not equally essential, from his point of view, that a woman should be sitting when a case is submitted to an appeals committee?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Question dealt with the matter as one for legislation. I do not think it is a suitable matter for legislation.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is in consequence of legislation that it has been found absolutely essential to have a woman sitting in the juvenile court, and should not that apply to the same kind of magistrates in an appeal committee in which the appeal is lodged against the juvenile court in which a woman has been sitting?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have a greater faith in quarter sessions than the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY (PENALTIES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recent trials at the Old Bailey for cruelty to children; and whether, as a result, he will consider amending the Criminal Justice Act so as to restore to the courts the right to impose corporal punishment in such cases.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir. I have seen the reports. This class of offence was not one of the limited group of offences for which corporal punishment could be imposed before its abolition as a judicial penalty by the Criminal Justice Act. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the apparently alarming increase in these offences and the peculiarly bestial quality of some of them, would not my right hon. and learned Friend be guided by the Lord Chief Justice, who strove so hard during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act to retain the threat of corporal punishment for such offences as this?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With the greatest respect, the Lord Chief Justice has approved of the suggestion which I put

to this House and of which I think this House has approved; that is, that those who are prosecuting should consider, in serious and deliberately cruel cases of ill-treatment, using the Offences Against the Person Act, which involves the heaviest penalty.

Sir T. Moore: I am sorry to be a nuisance, but I have to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up a committee to investigate and report on the adequacy of penalties imposed in cases of cruelty to children and animals.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of further recent cases of cruelty to, and neglect of, children, he will now appoint an all-party committee to investigate the problem in all its aspects and to recommend such remedial or punitive action as may seem appropriate and necessary.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As regards cruelty to children, I would refer to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on 22nd November. On cruelty to animals, I would refer to the reply I gave on 13th March to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that despite all these statements to which he has referred, the public conscience remains gravely disturbed, and will he say specifically what is the official Home Office view? Does it support what the Lord Chancellor said in another place only recently, that it is the duty of magistrates in serious cases not to pass sentence themselves, but to send the case for trial so that really adequate sentences can be imposed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is exactly what I said in the last debate in this House about three months ago—and I think it had the support of the House—that cases of secondary seriousness should be sent for trial under the Children's Act; and that, as I said a moment ago, the more serious cases should be sent for trial under the Offences Against the Person Act. That is the procedure which is being carried out.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not a fact that despite all that has been done by the Home Office and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessor, we are, in fact, making no progress at all in this matter, that the public conscience is really shocked by this blot on our society, and that it is not by any means only a matter of punishment, but of remedial treatment as well? Would it not be a great advantage, in view of the great wealth of knowledge and vast experience possessed by this House and by our constituents, if this matter were examined on a broader basis?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On the first point, it is only three months since the suggestion of mine that a greater use of trial on indictment and under the Offences Against the Person Act should be made. I think we ought to give that a trial. On the second point, what I may call the preventive aspect of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, may I remind him that a Private Member's Bill was introduced to deal with that, and I can assure him that if any suggestions are made for improving the working of the present machinery, and especially the machinery set up by my predecessor with regard to children's officers and local authorities, I shall gladly look into them and try to improve them in any way I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL MATCH TICKETS (TOUTING AND TRADING)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the growing practice of touting for and trading in tickets for football matches.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir. A prohibition on the sale of tickets at an enhanced price to a willing buyer would be almost impossible to enforce, and where touting amounts to a nuisance other powers are usually available to deal with it.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what other powers should be used by the police to deal with what he recognises is an increasing nuisance and a source of annoyance and irritation?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I had in mind the ordinary powers under the Police Clauses Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMES OF VIOLENCE (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing corporal punishment for crimes of violence.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The arguments for and against corporal punishment were exhaustively considered by the Departmental Committee which reported in 1938, and were fully debated in the Criminal Justice Bill, 1948, which abolished it as a judicial penalty. The number of crimes of violence for which corporal punishment could be awarded before 1948 has varied little over the years 1947 to 1951. This does not support the view that reconsideration of this controversial question is urgently required.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the people who commit these offences do not pay any heed to the injury and pain they inflict of their victims, and does not he think that a dose of their own medicine would act as a deterrent to those who strike down innocent women and children who get in their way while they are committing their crimes?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point I was trying to make was that when this House has come to a decision on a very controversial matter of this kind, we ought to have a chance of appreciating the results of that decison before we go into the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he proposes to increase the staff of his office in Wales; what is the number of persons at present employed; and the number of rooms occupied by the secretariat.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: For the reasons I gave in my reply to the hon. Member


on 6th December, I do not expect to have to appoint a large staff to assist me in my duties as Minister for Welsh Affairs, and I have not so far found it necessary to set up an office in Wales for this purpose. I have so far been able to call on the accommodation and assistance which I require.

Mr. Thomas: Would the Minister be kind enough to answer that part of the Question which asks for the number of persons he has employed to assist him—or, it may be, whom the Joint Under-Secretary has employed, for I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is doing something in the Welsh Department.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point which the hon. Gentleman raised was dealt with in the former answer. What I wanted to make clear was that the nature of the office and the work which my hon. Friend and I do must depend on assistance from other Departments. I have to try—and the House will forgive me for being personal for one moment—to get a good working knowledge of Welsh agricultural and industrial conditions. It is obviously better that I should try to do that by collaborating with the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade than that I should set up in some way a separate staff.

Mr. Thomas: Has the Minister no co-ordinating staff with a knowledge of Welsh to help him in his important work?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We have the member of the staff who was mentioned in the previous answer, who is my guide, philosopher and friend when occasion arises for me to listen to or speak Welsh.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL-CROSSING PATROLS

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement following the discussions between local authorities and the Departments concerned on the question of school-crossing patrols.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My colleagues and I had a most useful discussion with the local authority representatives on Tuesday afternoon, 25th March. We are now examining a number of questions which were raised at the meeting.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to give the House the benefit of his opinions on that conference because, as he knows, the matter is one of extremely grave urgency?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Gentleman than in saying that the matter is one of grave urgency. I want to get our steps into operation as soon as possible, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is essentially a matter in which I have to carry local authorities with me, because they deal with the position of the schools and also the position of the parents. I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to get an agreed system very shortly.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Kent County Council have decided to abolish these patrols unless the police undertake these duties? In those circumstances, will the Home Secretary say that he will consider authorising the police to carry out these duties?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly I will consider that. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education indicated, that is what we are considering. It is a question of finding the machinery for putting the matter into operation. I hope all hon. Members will help me and help the local authorities to find a system to deal with what I think is a most important matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.K. AND IRISH REPUBLIC (TRAVEL PERMITS, ABOLITION)

Mr. Alan McKibbin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to abolish the control of passenger traffic between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he is prepared to modify the travel restrictions at present in force between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: After careful consideration, I have decided that the present system of control of passengers


travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Great Britain and the Irish Republic, should be abolished; and it will be discontinued on 7th April. From that date, it will be unnecessary for passengers travelling on the routes in question to obtain special documents for the journey or to obtain leave to land from an immigration officer. Aliens will, of course, still have to carry documents establishing their nationality and identity: and amendments have been made to the Aliens Order to make possible the imposition on aliens coming from the Republic of conditions such as are normally attached to the grant by an immigration officer of leave to land in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McKibbin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in removing these restrictions, he will receive the thanks of the business community and also of tourists, who have so long been denied their rights as British subjects to travel freely within the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that hon. Members opposite, who are not so friendly disposed towards Ulster, can scarce forbear to cheer, and that this will also benefit the Irish Republic?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the last two Parliaments the abolition of these unnecessary restrictions on travel to essential parts of the United Kingdom was frequently pressed upon his predecessor without success and that today, in making this decision, he has earned the gratitude of everyone in Northern Ireland, irrespective of party?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the answer mean that passports will or will not be necessary in travelling to and from Ireland in future?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think my answer is perfectly clear.

Mr. Cahir Healy: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that, in return for this concession, he will ask the Northern Ireland Government to abolish the censorship of letters, which is equally distasteful?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Cigarettes (Arsenic Content)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the arsenic content of English cigarettes has been found to range twice as high as that of American cigarettes and 25 times as high as that of Turkish and Rhodesian cigarettes; and whether, in view of the fact that there are grounds for the belief that this arsenic content may be the cause of the increasing incidence of cancer of the lung, he will take steps to regulate the entry into the country of tobacco having an unnecessarily high arsenic content.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend is aware that a small-scale study showed these proportions, but I understand the amounts were very small and varied widely in the same types of cigarettes. Also my right hon. Friend is advised that arsenic in tobacco smoke is not established as a likely cause of cancer of the lung, and that the great bulk of the tobacco used in British cigarettes comes from the countries mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that arsenic is regarded by those who have studied this subject as being contributory to cancer, and that this content of arsenic in American tobacco arises from the use of arsenic sprays in that country unnecessarily? In refusing to take the action for which I have asked, does she realise that she and the Minister are hazarding the lives of the citizens of this country?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Taking the best evidence available to the Department, I can assure my hon. Friend that international lung cancer statistics give no indication that arsenic in cigarettes causes cancer, although one Turkish hospital has reported a high incidence of lung cancer.

Mr. Frederick Messer: Is it not true that the Medical Research Council is considering this matter?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Lady represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the increased use of


Rhodesian and Greek tobacco would make a major contribution to curing the economic cancer of our dollar deficiency in our balance of payments?

Cancer

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health the proportion of the total deaths in the United Kingdom which arose from cancer in 1931 and 1951 respectively.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In 1950, the latest year for which figures are available, the proportion of total deaths in England and Wales, which arose from cancer including various analogous conditions was 16.71 per cent. The comparable figure for 1931 was 11.96 per cent. As regards Scotland, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health if he has given consideration to the desirability of education in the cancer field; and what conclusions he has reached.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, Sir. The Central Health Services Council have advised my right hon. Friend that it is undesirable at the present time for any cancer publicity to be carried out by any central Government organisation direct to the general public. My right hon. Friend's Cancer and Radiotherapy Standing Advisory Committee are considering the merits of local schemes of cancer education.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is about time that the secrecy with which cancer has been surrounded for the past 30 years was brought to an end and some attempt made to educate the public and enable them to take certain safeguards that are practicable in this case?

Dr. Barnett Stross: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that the type of advice which she has been given and which she has described is, in the minds of many other people, and, I think, in the minds of the public at large, wrong, and that the public have the right to know what dangers they face, whether they be from cigarettes or whether they be from arsenic in tobacco? The more we know about them the better for us all.

Mr. John Hynd: Can the hon. Lady indicate to the House how much of the

increase in deaths attributable to cancer, to which she has referred, is due to the improvement in the method of diagnosis?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In answer to the last question, certainly I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that considerable steps in improvement have been taken in diagnosis in the early stages of the incidence of cancer, and that has substantially contributed to the increased figures. So far as the other points raised are concerned, taking the best medical advice at our disposal we do not think it is advisable to increase public alarm, but we are using all endeavours, by the education of general practitioners in early diagnosis, to encourage all possible methods of ascertaining the incidence of this disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mental Defectives

Mr. James MacColl: asked the Minister of Health how many mental defectives have been received into institutional care from the area of Divisional Health Committee No. 9 of the Lancashire County Council by the Liverpool and Manchester regional hospital boards, respectively, during each of the last two convenient years; and how many of these were under 16 years of age.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In the Manchester region, in 1950, four patients from this area over 16 were received in mental deficiency institutions, and in 1951 one patient over 16 and one patient under 16. In the Liverpool region, no patients from this area were received in institutions in 1950 or 1951; but in 1951 two were taken to places of safety under Section 15 of the Mental Deficiency Act.

Mr. MacColl: Does the hon. Lady not think that these figures show that neither of those regional hospital boards is giving adequate service to these very unforunate young children, and will she take steps to see that the selection of children does meet the needs of this area?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The Liverpool Regional Hospital Board is very much alive to the limited accommodation which it has for defectives, and I can


assure the hon. Gentleman that special arrangements are being made to increase the accommodation in the Liverpool region by the development of the mental deficiency colony at Greaves Hall.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of institutional accommodation for mentally defective children in the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board area; and whether he will take steps to improve the position.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is now reviewing proposals made by the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board to relieve the shortage.

Dental Goods Industry

Mr. H. A. Marquand: asked the Minister of Health what consultations he has had with representatives of the dental goods industry following the publication of the annual report on the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: None, Sir; but consultations will take place from time to time as necessary to ensure that the criticisms of the Monopolies Commission are met.

Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Lady not aware that consultations are promised on this subject in the annual report of the Board of Trade? Is she further aware that the Board of Trade shows that by December the industry had not yet fulfilled the undertakings which it gave as long ago as last July?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that many of the Commission's criticisms were left, as the Commission recommended, to be dealt with by the industry itself, and the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders has undertaken to make a comprehensive revision of the rules and regulations, which is in course of being done for this purpose. Meanwhile a number of price reductions have already been made by manufacturers since the publication of the report in lines of goods which, in the Commission's view, yielded an undue share of profit. Throughout these negotiations the Department has been in consultation on the revision of these rules, and so far as the Board of Trade is concerned in this matter, it has been kept in the discussions.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Lady convey to her right hon. Friend that the vigour or otherwise with which he pursues this matter will be regarded as a test of the seriousness of the promises which the present Government gave to the electorate to strengthen the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. John Baird: The hon. Lady mentioned that price reductions had taken place. I am a dental surgeon, and I do not think that the dentists have noticed any substantial reductions at all.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the items he will find that there has been a reduction, among others, in acrilic materials and teeth. He will find, too, that a minor restrictive agreement concerning burs, and operated by one firm, was brought to an immediate end on the publication of the report.

Day Nursery, Carlisle

Mr. A. Hargreaves: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the public meeting of protest held in Carlisle on 12th March, 1952, against the decision to close the Currock day nursery, and, in view of its importance to mothers engaged in industry, if he will take action to disapprove this decision, so that the day nursery may continue.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The closing of this nursery does not need my right hon. Friend's consent, and he does not feel called on to intervene.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is the hon. Lady aware that an expression of disapproval from the Department would lead to a reconsideration of the position, which, undoubtedly, has caused a good deal of concern and alarm?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am informed that there are two nurseries neither of which is fully used. The remaining nursery of 50 places should provide adequately for children needing accommodation on health or social grounds.

Permanent Invalids (Accommodation)

Mr. Powell: asked the Minister of Health how many institutions exist under his control specifically for the


accommodation of permanent invalids in early and middle life; and what is the capacity of those institutions.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Two separate establishments with 54 beds are now in process of conversion to this use. Five other special sections of larger hospitals provide 109 beds, and three more units with 72 beds are in various stages of preparation.

Mr. Powell: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is still in this respect a gap in the Service, and will the Minister continue his efforts to close the gap?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: While appreciating the remarks of my hon. Friend, I must say that I am sure he will recognise that the number of hospital patients in this group is not large—possibly between 400 and 500 spread throughout the whole country. It is very difficult to place them because it is necessary, we feel, to accommodate them within a reasonable distance of visiting relatives. It is, therefore, our policy to foster the development of smaller groups in hospitals.

Out-Patient Departments (Appointments)

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he will look into the present system of making hospital appointments for out-patient departments, to see if the present lengthy period of waiting for such patients can be done away with.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Hospitals have already been urged to introduce an efficient appointments system in out-patient departments so as to reduce waiting time to the minimum. If my hon. Friend has in mind particular hospitals where the system is not working well, I should be glad to make inquiries.

Air Commodore Harvey: While some waiting time is to be expected, does my hon. Friend not realise that some patients wait hours for treatment in hospital, and that if this were looked into the medical staff would be saved much effort, and things would be better for the patients?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Perhaps I should first say that, on the conclusion of the business already announced for today, it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 31ST MARCH.

Second Reading:

Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill.

New Towns Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.

TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL.

Committee and remaining stages:

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Second Reading:

Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL.

Supply [9th Allotted Day].

It is proposed to move you, Mr. Speaker, out of the Chair on Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1952–53.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), will call attention to the importance of the adequate interpretation of British opinions and policies at home and abroad.

THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL.

Committee stage:

National Health Service Bill.

FRIDAY, 4TH APRIL.

Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

During the week it is hoped to consider the Motion to approve the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.

It may be convenient if I inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 10th April, and to meet again on Monday. 21st April.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, been informed, through the usual channels, that the Opposition intend to put down a Prayer on the Iron and Steel Prices Order on Monday. That is a very important matter, and it would be helpful if it could come on at a reasonable time. Perhaps it might be possible to get through Government business by seven or eight o'clock.

Mr. Crookshank: If the right hon. Gentleman can assist us in getting Government business through by that time it would be of great advantage, for this Prayer could then come on in good time. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the help he is going to give me.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by saying that the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill will be taken after today's business? Is it intended to suspend the Rule in respect of that Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: So far as I know, it is exempted business.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken before Easter; and, if so, when the text will be published?

Mr. Crookshank: The Bill has been published, but I cannot say yet whether it will be taken the week after next or not.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that on Tuesday we are to have, first, the Second Reading of a rather important Measure, and then the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill? I am sure he will appreciate that there are 18 new Clauses in the name of the Government, let alone the new Clauses that are being put down by other hon. Members. Can he offer us another day next week for that Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: What I said was that we would start the day with the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and have the Second Reading of the Marine Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill afterwards.

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give a further day for the Army and Air Force (Annual)

Bill, in view of the number of Government Amendments?

Mr. Crookshank: I have had no representations from anywhere that it was such a controversial Measure this year. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that it is.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the B.B.C. Charter was continued for six months, and that that period is coming to an end sufficiently soon to require the consideration of the new Charter or of a White Paper. Can he say when the White Paper or the new Charter will be available? I think it is time we knew, because hon. Members will want notice so that they can consider it.

Mr. Crookshank: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall make every effort to give proper notice for full consideration of this most important subject.

Mr. Morrison: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when we shall get it? Presumably, the Government have had it under consideration, and he will know how advanced they are in coming to their conclusions. Can he give us any idea when we shall get it?

Mr. Crookshank: I have no idea that I can convey to the House today about it.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman see no possibility of coming to an early conclusion on the conflict of views between the Conservative Central Office and Ministers about this?

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very strong hope expressed by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs during an Adjournment debate on the Kenya land question that there would be an early opportunity of discussing this matter? In view of the evictions which are now taking place in Kenya, will he arrange for that early debate?

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that to the usual channels. I had not realised exactly what was said in the previous debate, but at first sight it seems very suitable for a Supply day, the choice of subjects for which rests, of course, with the official Opposition.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: On more than one occasion in the House the right hon. Gentleman, when asked about business for the forthcoming week or future business, has evaded questions put by hon. Members and merely referred them to their own leaders. Will he not pay more serious attention to the serious questions that are put to him, even if they do not emanate from the usual channels?

Mr. Crookshank: That is not the difficulty at all. Questions of arranging the business for next week and the week after are very much more easily handled if a previous suggestion is made through the usual channels, but if hon. or right hon. Gentlemen like to have a word with me at any time and say, "We think such and such a debate would be a good idea," I can discuss that with the official Opposition, with whom it rests to decide what to debate on Supply days, or with my own colleagues if they are matters for which we think the Government should afford time.

Mr. R. Ewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman give time for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and that of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House on the question of the north-eastern area sharing a wavelength, under the B.B.C. broadcasting system, with Northern Ireland? We attach great importance to this matter in view of the Postmaster-General's attitude in refusing to discuss the matter with a deputation of Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Crookshank: Again, I do not know anything about that one. Possibly, if it is in order, it might have half a Supply day.

Mr. Charles Williams: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations through the usual channels for another day for a debate on defence?

Mr. Crookshank: I doubt whether the usual channels would be agitating in that direction after the previous debate on that subject.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask the Leader of the House if the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) is not a question arising out of a considered statement made by the Colonial Secretary which the Leader of the House ought

to be in a position to answer and which he has evaded?

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: With regard to the question put concerning the wavelength referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart), does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we are much more anxious to discuss the disadvantage under which Northern Ireland suffers in having to share this wavelength?

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the fact that I did not quite catch the answer given to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir 1. Fraser), can my right hon. Friend say whether the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken before or after Easter?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say yet.

BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO TRIBE CHIEFTAINSHIP)

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the chieftainship of the Bamangwato tribe in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Her Majesty's Government have given careful and prolonged consideration to the succession to the chieftainship of the Bamangwato tribe in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Seretse Khama's claim to be recognised as chief.
The White Paper issued by the previous Administration in March, 1950 (Cmd. 7913), which withheld recognition from Seretse Khama as chief, promised review of the position in five years. It also provided that both Seretse and his uncle, Tshekedi Khama, should remain outside the Bamangwato Reserve, that the functions of the Native Authority should be vested in the District Commissioner, and that a system of councils should be established which would progressively assume responsibility for the administration of the tribe. Tshekedi Khama has since voluntarily renounced all claim to the chieftainship both for himself and his children.
The principal reasons cited in the White Paper in support of the previous Administration's decisions were as follow. In accordance with the customs of his tribe Seretse, as chief-designate should have


consulted his people when he contemplated choice of a consort. His failure to do so betokened a lack of responsibility in a potential ruler and by his precipitate marriage he was unmindful of the interests of his tribe and of his public duty.
The tendency in the Bamangwato tribe to disputes about the succession would be aggravated by uncertainty as to their future attitude towards the children of the marriage. For these reasons, to use the words of the White Paper, Seretse Khama's recognition would be against the unity and well-being of the tribe.
The White Paper also recorded that both in the High Commission Territories and in other parts of Southern Africa, there was both among prominent Africans and Europeans a considerable weight of opinion opposed to recognition of Seretse as chief.
It is true that a considerable proportion of the tribespeople have, on occasion, demonstrated their readiness to designate Seretse as chief. But, as pointed out in the White Paper of 1950, and I quote,
H.M. Government have a wide responsibility for the well-being and good government of the Protectorate as a whole and of the other High Commission Territories. In particular, they have in this respect a duty in matters of disputed successions that they must discharge. The opinion of the Tribal assembly can only be one of the factors contributing to their decision.
Her Majesty's Government agree with the reasons adduced by their predecessors in withholding recognition from Seretse. But the promise to review this decision in five years and the indeterminate and unusual character of the temporary arrangements contemplated, which conflicted gravely with customary tribal procedure, have not proved satisfactory or conducive to the well-being and happiness of the tribe.
The hopes expressed in the White Paper of 1950 have not been fulfilled, namely, that the arrangements set out in it would lead to the disappearance of the tendencies to disruption which threatened the unity and well-being of the tribe. It is now clear that affection for traditional institutions is so strong that settled conditions and satisfactory administration will not be restored to the Bamangwato until they again have a recognised chief.
It has become essential, therefore, to bring to an end the uncertainty arising

from the limited duration of the decision announced in the White Paper, and to terminate as soon as possible what can only be a temporary expedient of direct rule by European officers. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly been obliged to review the position without further delay.
For the reasons stated in the White Paper, Seretse Khama, unhappily, made it impracticable for Her Majesty's Government's predecessors to accord him recognition as chief. But the interests of the Bamangwato demand that there should be a chief and Her Majesty's Government, having reviewed the situation, have decided that their predecessors' refusal to recognise Seretse must be confirmed and made permanent and final, and that the tribe should be invited to put forward in due course a candidate other than Seretse or Tshekedi.
They have also decided that good government and the well-being of the Reserve require that Seretse Khama should absent himself from the Protectorate until an alternative chief has been securely established with his own native administration.
Her Majesty's Government are, naturally, concerned that the future of Seretse Khama and his wife should be secured in another sphere where he could well have a useful and successful career. They have informed him that the Jamaica Government have offered him a Government post in that Colony. This offer remains open to him for a limited time and Her Majesty's Government hope that he will, on further consideration, find it possible to accept it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is a very grave and serious statement which is bound to have very serious repercussions which, I think, we can only discuss in a full debate. In the meanwhile, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman two questions: Does he not agree that this decision of the Government is calculated to create the worst possible impression in that tribe and to appear to them to be a deliberate provocation of their expressed views? They have made it clear that they want Seretse Khama back and they do not want Tshekedi Khama. Now, as a result of all the Government actions taken together, they are having the very opposite to what they wanted and this must


appear to them to be a trampling of their wishes. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it is calculated to fill them with alarm?
Second, why has this decision been announced at this particular moment? Is it to forestall the deputation coming from Bechuanaland and to give some ground for the Secretary of State to refuse to see them, in which case that is a very shabby and discreditable action, unworthy of the British Government? If it is not that, why is it being done at this moment?

Mr. Foster: In answer to the first part of that question, I do not agree with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the second part, the object of this statement being made now is to end the uncertainty which, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, has created conditions which make the proper administration of the tribe impossible. That is the reason for making this statement now.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not wish to comment on the statement, but I think that two points ought to be made clear. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to exclude Seretse Khama permanently from residence with the Bamangwato Tribe, or is it only to exclude him from the position of chief?
The second point is that an arrangement was made by the previous Government by which an annual payment is being made to Seretse Khama. Will that payment be continued, together with the revenue to which he is rightly entitled, and handed to him, irrespective of anything that he does, in addition to anything else that he may have?

Mr. Foster: The answer to the first supplementary question put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, "Yes." Her Majesty's Government have not taken any decision permanently and in all circumstances to exclude Seretse from his native land. With regard to the second supplementary question, the salary in Jamaica would be paid in addition to any allowance made by the previous Government and would be continued by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I put two questions to the hon. and learned Gentle-

man? First of all, in view of this decision, is it Her Majesty's Government's intention and decision that they will not receive representations from the representatives of the tribe, who are, I think, on their way, or are contemplating coming, to this country very soon?
Second, in coming to this permanent and final decision at this time, have Her Majesty's Government taken into account what is happening now in Africa? Was the Colonial Secretary consulted? Do not the Government realise that, in view of what is happening in Central and Southern Africa these days, this can only lead to the gravest possible disturbances there and will be taken by the Africans all over that great continent, where amicable racial relationships are so important, as being in keeping with some other things that the Government have done?

Mr. Foster: The decision is that of Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and it was made for the reason which I have stated—the well-being of the tribe itself. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the happenings to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred do not affect the timing of the decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It has been made for the reason I have said.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question as to whether my noble Friend would receive the deputation from the Bamangwato—it is not certain whether they are coming or not, I believe—the answer is that that would not help. No obstacle is placed in the way of their coming to this country and they have been issued with passports, but my noble Friend has said that he is not willing to see them as all the arguments are known—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]—and this is a matter for Seretse Khama's own decision.

Mr. Griffiths: May I follow up this question? This is of enormous importance at this stage. The decision to refuse to see the representatives of the African people who desire to come here to see the Minister is a policy calculated to lead to grave damage to our reputation in Africa. Will Her Majesty's Government reconsider this matter and postpone a decision until the representatives of the tribe have made representations to them?

Mr. Foster: My noble Friend will consider anything which the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, may suggest.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this decision follows absolutely inevitably from the decision of the previous Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Is it not time that the interests of this unfortunate young man were considered rather than that he should be used as a political catspaw?

Mr. Christopher Hollis: To clear up the two points raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what opinions were expressed at the recent kgotla? Were they unanimous opinions in favour of Seretse's return? What opinions were expressed?

Mr. Foster: The opinions expressed at the latest kgotla of which I have recollection were mainly in favour of the return of Seretse—[An HON. MEMBER: "Unanimously."]—I am subject to correction by the hon. Gentleman—but, as stated in the White Paper by my predecessors, the views of the kgotla are not the only considerations. Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility with regard to this tribe and matters of succession, and that is only one of the factors which they must take into account.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in deposing Seretse Khama as Chief-Designate of the Bamangwato tribe.

Mr. Speaker: I am asked to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to consider the action of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in deposing Seretse Khama as Chief-Designate of the Bamangwato tride.
I must confess that this matter is new to me. Do I understand from the statement which has been made that Seretse Khama is deposed from his position in the tribe?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the House that my only desire is to arrive at the truth about this matter. Owing to the events of last night, I have not had sufficient notice of this, and it is the first time that I have seen it. As I understand the position, this young man is now forbidden to go into the territory.

Mr. Foster: He is excluded from the chieftainship—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is a play on words."]—but he is not being deposed from the chieftainship because he never was chief.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Might I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: On a point of order. Will you ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to refresh the mind of the House, Mr. Speaker, about the relevant passage of his statement, so that you may be clear as to the intention?

Mr. Gordon Walker: That was what I was about to do. The essential words are in paragraph 7, as follows:
… Her Majesty's Government … have decided that their predecessors' refusal to recognise Seretse must be confirmed and made permanent and final. …
The new thing is the making permanent and final of the refusal to recognise Seretse.

Mr. Benn: This new statement involves a change of policy and not just a difference in the degree of policy, in that hitherto Seretse Khama was not excluded from the position of heir to the chieftainship and the matter was left in the air for five years, but that he is now permanently to be excluded from the line of succession.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Might I just recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker, the actual legal position? Under the Bechuanaland Ordinances, the position is that it is in the power of the tribe to designate somebody as a chieftain, but until such time as Her Majesty, as advised by her Ministers here, accords her agreement to his occupying that position, he is unable to do so.
What has happened in this case is that Her Majesty's Government have now announced that under no circumstances are they prepared to agree to the person


who has been designated by the tribe ever occupying the position to which the tribe wish to raise him. That is an entirely new situation, and it is one which is very likely to arouse the gravest difficulties throughout the whole of the Commonwealth, particularly without holding a colonial conference.

Mr. Speaker: Has the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) the support of the House?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9, until Seven o'Clock this evening.

Mr. Benn: As Government business today is of the greatest importance would you, Mr. Speaker, consider following the precedent set by your predecessor in 1920 when a Motion of this kind was accepted but was postponed on the advice of Mr. Speaker so that Government business could continue?

Mr. Speaker: These Motions have to be brought up at the earliest possible time or else they lose their priority, but so far as the subject matter for the debate is concerned, it can be postponed to another day. I am told that there are cases where it has been done. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] In that case we had better let it stand. The time lost in discussing this Motion will, of course, be added to the time of the other business.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that the business before the House today is the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, which is of the utmost importance, and as the debate will be interrupted at 7 o'Clock, will the Government consider giving another day

for the completion of the Second Reading? Could I have a reply?

Mr. Crookshank: The Standing Order provides that if time is taken out of the business hours of the day on such an Adjournment Motion as that proposed, then that time is made up after the expiration of the debate on the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Bevan: That is as relevant as the right hon. Gentleman's usual answers on this matter. The point I am raising is this: Is it desirable to continue after 10 o'Clock to debate the Second Reading of so important a matter as the National Health Service Bill, or does the right hon. Gentleman want to hide it from the public gaze?

Mr. Speaker: In fairness, it ought to be said that when this Bill was put down for discussion today the Government had no knowledge whatsoever that a Motion of this sort would be moved.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Now that they have the knowledge, could we ask the Leader of the House if we could not continue the debate on the National Health Service Bill on Monday? There does not seem to be anything of first-rate importance on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: The procedure is laid down in the Standing Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on National Health Service [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Bill extends the power to make and recover certain charges for the National Health Service. The general reasons for that were explained during the debate on the financial and economic situation in January, and they were then accepted by a majority of the House. But, of course, the Opposition then made, and I dare say will go on making, an attack upon the Government for touching this service at all. I think it may well be that many people who are not themselves engaged in political battles will, in their heart of hearts, be surprised, if a general saving of public expenditure is to be made—and "is to be made" is the key consideration—to find that this field should be automatically put out of bounds. It is one which should at least be explored.
We are not concerned today with a purely financial attempt at retrenchment at all costs. Far from it. When the Government were seeing whether any savings could be made in the Health Service the considerations they had constantly in mind were: are there any obvious abuses to be rectified? Can we sooner or better reach what is the ultimate objective of us all, improving the public health, by pruning or re-arranging some of the present services or, indeed, by getting the emphasis altered in the right direction? By this Bill we can make some such improvements while, at the same time, restraining the expenditure.
There are two general points to be remembered on the financial side of the Health Service. It is important to remind hon. Members and people outside this House that this service is paid for as to 90 per cent. out of taxation. It is not an insurance system in any sense of the word. Let me remind hon. Members that the employed man's card, on which the stamps are put each week, represents 9s. 5d., or 113 pennies. The employed

man himself pays 5s. 1d., that is, 61 pennies out of the 113 pennies. But out of the 113 pennies the total contribution which goes towards the Health Service is only 10d., which is a minute contribution towards the £400 million that it costs. That is what we in this House would call a grant in aid, and it is neither an insurance premium nor a payment for services to be received. It is just a contribution.
This was very much in the mind of Sir Stafford Cripps when Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I remember that in April, 1949, he was saying that there was a good argument for a special charge or tax in connection with the Health Service to help to finance it and—this is the important point—so that people generally should remember that the service had to be paid for out of taxation. To impose a charge is, therefore, not breaking faith with anybody. The fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have done it before emphasises that point.
The second general financial point is this: it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who, last year, put a ceiling of £400 million on to the service and to keep public expenditure below that ceiling he recommended the House to put charges both on dentures and on spectacles. He did not put any charge on prescriptions, but it was he and his colleagues who two years before had taken power to do it. They took the power, but when the time came in 1951 they did something else. They put on charges, and they accepted the principle that a ceiling of £400 million sterling was reasonable for this service.
All that we are doing in the Bill is to work to exactly the same ceiling as did the Labour Government last year, and because costs have risen we are doing exactly the same thing as they did; that is to say, we, too, are putting on charges. When I say that we are making it possible to put on a charge I really mean a charge, and I do not mean the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) meant in 1949 when an Amendment was moved and accepted to give the Government of the day power to do it then. What the right hon. Gentleman said was:
We are, in fact, confining the power to make Regulations to withhold free sales up to


a certain amount—not to impose a charge. That is not a power to impose a charge. This is to restrict the free service on the pharmaceutical side up to 1s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2261.]
When is a charge not a charge? When proposed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
As a matter of fact, we are in some difficulty over this whole matter, upon a procedural matter. I know that hon. Members will be wanting to discuss many implications of the proposed charge on doctors' prescriptions, which is to make up most of the charge with which we are dealing. The Bill does not deal with that at all, but I hope that sufficient latitude may be given by the Chair for that ground to be covered.
The Bill deals with a very small part of that problem. Regulations will be laid under the Act of 1949, the Labour Government's Act. We have had to introduce a Bill to tidy up the power of making Regulations. We are making no new decisions. The Labour Government, in 1949, took the decision that it was a proper thing to put a charge on doctors' prescriptions. We do not need any Act to carry that out. We are merely putting life into the Labour Act and we shall make Regulations to impose a 1s. charge, which, in itself, may well save the Exchequer something like £12 million sterling. They made the plan, and we are taking the action. It is a shared business.
There was one small gap in the Act of 1949. The Labour Government took power only to issue Regulations covering prescriptions and appliances prescribed by doctors. I do not know whether it was an oversight or by intention—and it is immaterial which it was—but they did not take similar power in the case of prescriptions and appliances provided in the outpatient departments of hospitals. If we are to ask the generality of people to pay a charge for prescriptions it seems only right that the fact that the particular person gets his medicine or appliance from an outpatient department of a hospital should not be of tremendous advantage to him. Clause 1 deals with that aspect of the matter. It is only to that extent that the matter arises technically in the Bill. It does not deal with in-patients. They continue to get everything free. There is no power to impose a charge upon them.
As regards outpatients, if there is a dispensary for them in the hospital there will be no charge to the recipients of National Assistance or to war pensioners who are being treated for accepted war injuries. They will continue to get the issue free. If there is no dispensary, those people and the other outpatients will have to go, like everybody else, to a chemist and get their prescriptions made up. They will fall within the same group of provisions as were published by the Labour Government in 1949, dealing with prescriptions.
I will say what is generally proposed; we are still having conversations with doctors and chemists about the practical difficulties arising, particularly in rural areas. The proposals are that persons having prescriptions made up by chemists must pay not more than 1s. Persons who get their medicine from dispensing doctors pay 1s. when the medicine is dispensed. It is very often the case that more than one item is prescribed on a form, but the proposal is that the shilling will be paid per form and not per item on the form. There will be no exemptions. Everybody will pay, in the first instance. Those in receipt of National Assistance grants will claim, presumably, their refund, and they will get it from the office where they draw their assistance when they next go there to get it.
They will produce for that purpose a special receipt which the chemist or the dispensing doctor will have given them. It is a perfectly simple procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Form filling."] Form filling? It is only a receipt given by the chemist. They take it to the place where they receive their payment in the normal way, and they will get the money paid back to them. The same applies to war pensioners in respect of the charge incurred by reason of their accepted war disability.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I should like to be clear about what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that these people will have their shilling refunded when they get their payments in the normal way. They get their payments in the normal way at a post office by means of a book in which the sum due is printed. Have they to wait until special books have been printed? How long have they to wait?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry if I am not making the position clear.
They will get their receipts, worth 1s. or 2s., and when they go with their books they will hand over these receipts and get the corresponding number of shillings. They will not need new books at all. As to its being done at the post office, I did not put in "at the post office" because I am advised that there are cases where the money is not obtained at the post office and in which the recipients get the money by post or by some other means. The normal place is the post office and the normal procedure will be that they will hand in their books and these receipts, and get the corresponding number of shillings. Nothing could be simpler than that.
I have a lot to say. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I ran through the Bill. Cases of hardship will be dealt with in exactly the same way as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman last year in the Act of 1951. That is on the prescription point.
In regard to appliances, Clause 1 takes power to charge when the appliances are provided by hospitals. This principle was conceded by the Labour Government in the Act of 1949 because it allowed charges to be made for appliances provided by doctors but not by hospitals. The Bill brings in hospital out-patients, but only for a very small range of appliances.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will let me make some way with my speech.

Mr. Bevan: I only wanted to say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not twist the use of the term "appliance" as used by doctors. It was put into the Act in a technical way, to cover bandages.

Mr. Crookshank: I thing that the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is at fault.
A great many rumours and exaggerations have got about on the subject of the appliances with which we intend to deal. We do not propose to touch artificial legs or arms. There is a very short list, and if it is for the convenience of the House perhaps I might be allowed to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] First is the surgical boot. Hon.

Gentlemen will realise that people who have surgical boots prescribed for them ipso facto do not require ordinary boots. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] They do not. It is quite reasonable to make a charge for this appliance. The proposed charge will be £3 a pair, and there will be a charge for repair, in the case of women from 6s. to 13s. 6d. and of men from 8s. to 13s. 6d.
The second group is surgical abdominal supports, and we propose a charge of £1 each on them. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale probably knows that there have been a good many cases of alleged abuse reported, of prescribing what was not much more than a reinforced corset. The third item is elastic hosiery, charged at 5s. to 10s., according to its character. The fourth on the list is wigs, charged at £2 10s. each.
It had been suggested at one time that hearing aids should also be charged for as being analogous to the spectacles and the teeth. However, when it was realised how big a backlog in hearing aids there is still, and that it would have been unfair to many who have been on the list for so long that, just by a fortuitous act on the part of the House they should be made to pay when their next door neighbour did not, these were not put on the list. So the list is surgical boots and repairs, surgical abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs. This is expected to bring in about £250,000.
There will be no charge for hospital appliances in the case of children under 16 or in full-time attendance at school, persons in receipt of National Assistance or their dependants or war pensioners in respect of "accepted" disability. And, as in the case of the Act of last year, hardship can be dealt with by the Assistance Board.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the cost of these items is represented by these charges?

Mr. Crookshank: It is roughly about half, as was the case with the other charges put in by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
Now I will pass to Clause 2, which deals with the big subject of this Bill, namely, dental charges. This provides for a charge of £1 or less for the actual


fee for dental treatment, though it sets a maximum possible charge, where dentures are provided, of £4 5s. The estimated saving is of the order of £7½ million. We suggest two exemptions in Clause 2 (3)—school children, and mothers who are either expectant or who have borne a child within 12 months, are to have completely free treatment.
All that those persons will have to do who come within the exemptions will be to sign a declaration when they visit the dentist and satisfy him of their identity. Probably the reasonable way to do that is by showing the ration book. There is no question of any doctor's certificate or other document. We trust entirely in the honesty of these people and I am sure that it will not be misplaced. However, in case free treatment may be given to people who might come forward when they are not really entitled to it, there must be an ultimate sanction.
That is in Clause 5, which is common form in cases of this kind. It says that where it is afterwards discovered that knowingly false statements were made, a prosecution can follow against the person who has tried to get the benefit. Otherwise there is no formality short of signing the declaration that they come within the exempted classes and of identifying themselves.

Mr. John Baird: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: Can I not finish the dental Clause? I may be going to deal with the very point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and, anyway, he cannot be certain that I shall not.
These proposals have led to a great deal of argument as to whether we have chosen the right exemption age. It is suggested that instead of it being the school-leaving age, as it is in the Bill, it would be better to continue the exemption up to the age of 21, from the point of view of the future dental health of the nation, and having also in mind that men who are called up will, during their term of National Service, get free treatment. It is argued that it is rather unfair that young women should not get the advantage which the other sex gets owing to the call-up.
If we were to do anything of that kind, we should, naturally, reduce the amount

we hope to recover by these charges; I must warn the House that it would be a reduction of the order of £1 million. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that money was not the sole criterion and that we also wanted to get the emphasis right. Therefore, after further examining this point, the Government are prepared to accept the suggestion of raising that exemption age from the school-leaving one to 21—that is, under this Clause. I emphasise that it is under this Clause because there is no reason why, if dentures are provided, the recipient should not pay the normal charges under the Act of the Labour Government.

Mr. Marquand: From 16 to 21?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes. Should there be cases of hardship they will be treated in the same way as the Labour Government showed us. I admit that the £1 charge is a rough and ready way of dealing with this, but the Government recommends it largely to keep the free treatment more or less to the priority classes; that is to say, young people up to 21 and expectant and nursing mothers.
It is a sad result of the recent system that the school dental service has gone rather into a decline. We hope that these changes may encourage more dentists to enter into contracts with local authorities to work in that service, possibly on a part-time salaried basis. If that happens it will, in the long run, be very much to the advantage of the health of the nation, because the more care that can be given to the teeth of children and expectant and nursing mothers, the better, as I am sure the House will agree.
As for the £1 charge, arguments have been put to me by friends of mine in the House and outside and by correspondence with hon. Members in different quarters of the House, to the effect that a £1 charge put on in this way will reduce real conservation work for the adult population. I am not fully persuaded that a maximum charge of £1 need necessarily do this, and to describe it as "rotting the miners' teeth" as did the right hon. Gentleman, is the wildest of exaggerations—

Mr. Baird: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Crookshank: I know that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is always assumed to be the only person who knows what he is talking about, but I claim that this was an exaggeration. However, there is a case to be made that it would be a good idea under the Act that all examinations should be free of cost, and that the charge should begin only after the mouth has been examined. If we allowed the clinical examination to be free I think we should be quite within the principle of the Act. And in so far as it was a mistake in judgment to provide otherwise when we first made these proposals, I am quite prepared to stand in a white sheet and say so. I am also prepared, on behalf of the Government, to move the necessary Amendment so that this can be discussed and, I hope, put into the Bill.
There is one other point on teeth in Clause 4, about bridges. I mention it because it was of interest to my two predecessors when they were administering the service. In Clause 4 we make it clear that a bridge comes within the scope of the charge for dentures. Apparently there was some doubt about it. Bridges, generally speaking, are more expensive than dentures, but people who have had them put in instead of dentures have been getting away without any charge. That is obviously an unfairness as between citizen and citizen and we propose to alter that in Clause 4.
The other point of Clause 4 is that it extends the power which local authorities already have to make charges at day nurseries. At present they can make certain charges, but only for meals and particular articles and residential accommodation. This will enable them, if they so wish—it is a local government option, not a Government decree—in appropriate cases to make charges. It may interest the House to know that there are at present something like 45,000 places in day nurseries and that they cost about £5,250,000, of which the taxpayer finds half and the ratepayer half.
The average cost per place is about 45s. a week and of this some of the authorities recover only 7s. 6d. We feel that in many cases no hardship would follow if further charges were made, recovering either the whole or part of the cost, but it is left to the local authorities to decide whether they put them on and

what kind of arrangements they will make. This is only an enabling Clause but it may, possibly, save the Exchequer up to £500,000.
I have already referred to Clause 5, which deals with evasions. I do not think there is anything very much else in the other Clauses, which are mostly machinery, except, perhaps, to point out on Clause 6 that it is for the National Assistance Board to determine whether a person should be exempted from the charge, or part of the charge, on grounds of hardship and that they can grant assistance to persons for the purpose of meeting any of these charges even if they are in full employment. This will be entirely for the Board to decide and, of course, if they feel that their general discretion is insufficient, they can always come back to the Government and to Parliament.

Mr. Bevan: There is a form of words which puzzles me, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten the House about them. Apparently the National Assistance Board can give assistance to persons receiving
dental treatment outside the National Health Service.
What is the meaning of that? It is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that
Clause 6 (2) empowers the National Assistance Board …
[HON. MEMBERS: "Where does it say that?"] There are only two pages of the Explanatory Memorandum. It is in paragraph 9, which refers to Clause 6 (2).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can I help the right hon. Gentleman? It probably means that the Assistance Board will be able to help those people who incur expenses subsequent to advice and treatment being given by a dentist outside the Assistance Board.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not satisfied with that explanation.

Mr. Bevan: What is the Minister's explanation?

Mr. Crookshank: I will see that the right hon. Gentleman gets one later.

Mr. Bevan: The Minister does not know.

Mr. Crookshank: Quite frankly, offhand I cannot say. I apologise to the House—I might as well be quite honest about it. I think that the Clause is meant to cover all the points which were covered in the provisions about the National Assistance relief in respect of the charges of last year. I will inform myself further, and I offer my humble apologies to the right hon. Gentleman and to anybody else who feels deeply on this matter. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Lady for her explanation, but we will leave it at that for the moment.

Dr. Summerskill: If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that my explanation is not the right one, does that mean that if a poor patient is in an area which is not serviced by a dentist who was serving the present scheme that patient would be unable to have a refund of his or her expenses?

Mr. Baird: This is an important point, but it is quite simple. All emergency dental treatment up to £1 would be carried out by the dentist outside the Health Service; he would be able to charge anything up to £1. Will the Assistance Board pay anything up to £1 which the dentist wants to charge?

Mr. Crookshank: I dare say that the right hon. Lady's explanation is the correct one but, as I have said, I will look into it. I am not a dentist, like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. North-East (Mr. Baird), and this is a very technical point—

Mr. Bevan: It is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.

Mr. Crookshank: Dealing with bridges is quite complicated enough without getting into this difficulty. A reply will be given to the right hon. Gentleman, but I was under the impression that the Clause was merely carrying out the same arrangements as the previous Act had done; but if I am wrong I am sorry. I was saying that if the Board are not satisfied with their discretion, they can always come back to Government and to Parliament.
Those are the general provisions. I said the other day, and I repeat now,

that it is not any pleasure for the Government to ask for the imposition of these charges, but we still have to view these matters in the light of our perilous economic situation. Because of that, we have no alternative, and so long as the real hardships can be guarded against we hope that these economies will not be crippling to anybody.

Mr. Spencer Summers: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: I wish I could get on.

Mr. Summers: Before he leaves the matter of hardship, will my right hon. Friend allude to the question of prescription forms, with particular reference to the chronic sick? In other words, will it be permissible to prescribe well ahead in order to deal with these cases?

Mr. Crookshank: In the presence of so many distinguished members of the medical profession in the House, I am sure they would agree that I should be the last person to lay down anything in this field for doctors to do. I am quite sure that the doctors are just as much seized of these difficulties as anybody else. I am not going to lay down the law here and now as to how doctors are to do their prescribing.

Mr. Hector McNeil: This is not a point for medicals; it is a very important point for the House. There are people whose illness is of a kind which necessitates that periodically—perhaps, weekly—they must have a supply of certain drugs.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Why cannot that be put in the debate?

Mr. McNeil: Because we are at this point in the Bill, and it was raised by an hon. Member on the Prime Minister's side. It is not an unreasonable question. I am sorry if I upset the Prime Minister, but this is a point which has arisen at this stage of the debate and I intend to put it. Will the Minister tell us: Where there is chronic illness and a predictable amount of drug is needed—perhaps, every week—will practitioners be permitted under the Bill to make allocation ahead, so that the patient does not come every week to pay 1s.?

Mr. Crookshank: As I understand, that is more or less the practice now. Doctors know about that quite well and do, in fact, prescribe quite a bit ahead of time. All I am saying is that I do not think that the lay authorities ought to lay down in black and white to a profession like the medical one, exactly how they should prescribe in any particular case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad at last to have assent to something I have said.
We all know that doctors frequently prescribe in chronic cases for a considerable period, and I shall do nothing in the Bill which would stop that. I am not going to interfere with their professional ways of doing their business. But all this, of course, will come up under the Regulations; it has nothing to do with the Bill. That shows the wisdom of allowing a fairly wide debate on this matter.
I was saying that it is no pleasure to have to introduce this sort of Bill, but that the background all the time is the economic situation, which hon. Members from time to time lose sight of, as do people outside. These administrative provisions will have to be covered by Regulations, and it will be open to the House to debate those Regulations when they come along. They will not come until after the passage of the Bill.
I want to be quite fair to the House. Although I have full power, and have had ever since we came into office, as did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to impose the major charges under the 1949 Act, it is much more decent and proper, in the Parliamentary sense, so long as we are making amendments and extensions, to wait until the Bill has received the Royal assent, if so that be.
I see the right hon. Gentleman agreeing with that and I hope he will agree with me in this. I think it is only fair now for hospitals to warn people who attend to have appliances prescribed for them and to say, "This Bill is before Parliament and if it is passed you will have to pay a certain amount towards these appliances if you do not get them before the Bill is enacted." I think that that warning should be given and I hope the House will not think it improper. As there is no dissent, I hope the House will think it fair to do that as quickly as possible. There are no exemptions

under the hardship provisions of the Bill except those I have mentioned.
The fact remains that the cost of prescriptions this year is expected to be more than £50 million. If charges are introduced the assumption is that the estimate will go down; we estimate by about £12,500,000.
Hon. Members opposite, or at any rate their leaders, have accepted that there is a case for reducing this vast bill for medicines. The former Prime Minister, in 1949, said in the House that there was
excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
and there was an occasion when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale himself shuddered at what he called
the ceaseless cascade of medicine which is pouring down British throats.
That was in November, 1949, when the cost of the pharmaceutical service was £35 million. Now it is £50 million. If £35 million was a cascade, it is a Niagara today.

Mr. Frederick Messer: There are increased costs.

Mr. Crookshank: Oh, no, the increased costs do not cover anything like that; it is the increased number of prescriptions.
There have been requests for exemptions for old-age pensioners, Service men, and various other categories, but the Government do not feel that it would be right to give any of these groups exemption as such, although we have considered the problem in all its aspects. I have just said that persons in receipt of National Assistance benefit will, of course, receive repayment of the charge, just because they are on Assistance. Out of the old age pensioners that covers, I am sorry to say, something like 750,000. They would be immediately exempt and of the other four million old age pensioners if there are cases of hardship they will be able to make their case.
Part of our plan, as outlined in the Budget, is to increase the pension rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] It is more than hon. Members opposite were able to achieve. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The war-disabled who need medicine because of their war disability will be automatically repaid, but that is as far as we can go in that field. We examined the question of the industrially


injured people, who have a special scheme of their own, but it has not been found possible to bring them in. I am not sure whether it would be justifiable.
Then there have been criticisms about the dental scheme to the effect that we were retarding the much desired improvement in dental health, but we think that by the re-arrangements made in the Bill and which I have mentioned today this will be altered. The real trouble there is that we have only 10,000 dentists. If we had more than that things would be easier and the teeth of the nation would be better. To try to do as much as we can seems to be the answer.

Mr. Baird: If the dentists are shifted from the School Dental Service they still have to be paid; how will that save the £25 million?

Mr. Crookshank: I think it would work out.
I want to say a word before I close on something which is very much in the mind of hon. Members in all parts of the House: that is the relationship to this Bill and to the £400 million ceiling of the effect of the Danckwerts judgment. Perhaps I may be allowed a brief reference to that. I explained on Tuesday that the effect of the adjudication was broadly to increase the remuneration of general practitioners in the basic year of 1950–51 by £9,750,000. But the total bill that would fall in course of payment next year as a result of increases in previous and subsequent years might be of the order of £40 million although, of the £40 million, only £10 million would, in fact be attributable to the increased cost of their remuneration in the next financial year. That is to say, the £10 million is next year's part and the other £30 million, in rough figures, is the backlog for other years.
For next year the estimates, excluding Civil Defence, have left a little headroom below the ceiling and I am estimating that if no other great changes occur, no major catastrophes, and the charges in this Bill have the effect we assume, the ceiling will be exceeded but not by very much—by comparatively little. That is on the assumption that the £30 million payable next year is taken out of this account altogether. That is the assumption I made; it is not to be counted against the ceiling.
The conclusion is that it is not the intention of the Government, as a result of the Danckwerts award, to increase any of the charges I have mentioned in connection with this Bill and that if, as a result of this award and the £10 million or so next year, the figure of £400 million is surpassed in 1952–53, that is a situation which we shall all have to accept. The ceiling will have gone up pro tanto and that is that because it is a situation which could not have been fully foreseen by anyone. I hope that clears up the doubts of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
In the last debate he said that we were trying to destroy the National Health Service because we always hated it.

Mr. Bevan: The free National Health Service.

Mr. Crookshank: Nothing could be further from the truth. We have not always hated it and are not trying to destroy it. I only have to remind the House and the nation that it was a Conservative Minister who, in war-time, took the first step along this road under Lord Woolton, as Minister of Reconstruction, and under the Prime Minister in command. There is no reason for us either to want to destroy it or to hate it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You voted against it."] The fact remains that unless we restore our present precarious situation, unless we can restore confidence in sterling and stop the drain on our reserves it is not the National Health Service which will be destroyed but the very foundations of our economy which will be shaken—that is the danger we have to face—and much that all of us together have created and enjoyed would disappear in the twilight of national bankruptcy.
Those are the grim facts which, fundamentally, are the justification for the financial parts of the Bill. The other portion, which tries to turn the emphasis into a slightly better direction than it has been in the last few years, is the more constructive portion of the Bill which I now commend to the House.

4.49 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I have seen the right hon. Gentleman perform at the Dispatch Box on many occasions, but never have I seen him so uneasy, so unsure of himself and so


ignorant of his facts as this afternoon—and I am not surprised. He has this afternoon come to this House and done something which I believe is without precedent. He has presented a Bill on its Second Reading, a Bill so manifestly unjust in certain respects that he has had to come and promise to amend it because, I take it, his followers refused to allow him to wait until Committee stage.
I am very sorry for the Minister to find he has been deserted this afternoon by the one whom I regard as the architect of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I feel that the Chancellor might at least have given the Minister a little more support during the next few hours.
What the Minister has announced must be eleventh hour changes, because I recall last week, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) pressed him to tell the House what he proposed to do, the Minister was a little coy, and refused to disclose what the changes were to be. So, therefore, I say that they must be eleventh hour changes.
I am not surprised. My right hon. and hon. Friends have gone up and down the country during the last few weeks protesting against this mean Measure. Furthermore, I feel there have been other forces at work. I see the hon. Member for Enfield sitting opposite, and I recall that in the old days, when I was Minister of National Insurance, he used to make most constructive suggestions, for which I was grateful.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Yes, but I sit for Wolverhampton.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. My memory for the faces of hon. Members opposite is greater than my memory for their constituencies. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree I am right in saying that he has on occasions taken particular interest in matters of social welfare. I cannot believe that hon. Members like himself, and his hon. Friends, have allowed the Minister during the weeks which have elapsed—and there has been a great deal of procrastination—to come to this House with this Bill without insisting that there should be some amendment to it.
After all, I think it must have been a little difficult for the Government to

make hon. Gentlemen sitting on the back benches opposite forget that in the Tory Election Manifesto of October, 1951, it was said:
… in health some of the most crying needs are not being met.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Summerskill: Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear," yet they are prepared this afternoon to come to this House and listen to the right hon. Gentleman expounding a Bill which is emasculating the Health Service of this country. They have been asked to forget the health provisions in the Tory Election Manifesto just a few weeks after they were asked to erase from their memories the section about food in the same Manifesto, which read:
Food subsidies cannot be radically changed in the present circumstances. …
I suspect also there are other forces at work. The right hon. Gentleman is in charge of a very large Department and I believe he employs many distinguished doctors, both full-time and part-time. I think that if any one of those people had been consulted before this Bill was even printed they could have told him that the degree of dental caries is greater among the adolescent groups than among any other age group.
These changes, quite major changes in the dental charges, have been made today and I think that is some evidence that this Bill was hastily conceived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and thrust upon a bewildered Minister of Health who, quite understandably was not familiar with a Department, which is highly complex and technical. He has shown this afternoon, and I have every sympathy with him, that it has been quite impossible for him to grasp all the technical details of his Department. But it seems that these advisers of his have been brought into the picture only very recently and that, I say, is another example of the mismanagement of the business of Government.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point in his early remarks of reminding the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was responsible in the first place, for introducing some of these provisions. Let us look at the whole picture. I recall the


Chancellor of the Exchequer making a certain remark with regard to this Bill which struck me as being a little curious. This was shortly after the present Government was returned. He said:
Our predecessors, in the shape of the present Opposition, have conveniently left behind them legislation, out of which I do not propose to be manoeuvred, enabling a charge to be imposed on prescriptions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 54.]
I think that this afternoon the Minister of Health showed, by his hesitant manner, why that legislation had been left behind. I think the whole House will agree with me that it is a very unstatesmanlike approach for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to make to a piece of legislation left over in the pigeonholes of Whitehall. The very fact that the previous Government, after a most exhaustive discussion, had not thought fit to charge for treatment along the lines proposed in this Bill should be the very reason for at least delaying it, and not rushing in at the first opportunity, which is what the Government have done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not going to be out-manœuvred. The Bill was printed and remained in the Vote Office for many, many weeks. Meanwhile the Minister of Health was compelled to do what his predecessors had to do, but too late. He showed this afternoon that he has found himself in a great difficulty. He has been apologetic with regard to the other provisions to which I am now coming, and I will show him just how difficult it will be to administer this Bill. I am rather sorry that he did try to ride away on the Regulations. But there are some things this House must be told about in detail this afternoon of how these provisions are to be administered, because they are of the utmost importance to the poor sick of this country.
I say that we on this side of the House have no desire to out-manœuvre the right hon. Gentleman. I even tried to help him myself. All that we on these benches wish to do is to put the case for the sick and the poor. If this Bill is proceeded with, I believe I shall be able to prove that it is one of the most heartless pieces of legislation ever introduced by a Tory Government. The only excuse which I can find for the right hon. Gentleman and

his hon. Friends is that their ears have been so deafened by the raucous voices of the brewers in the last few months that they have been unable to hear the protests of the poor and the sick.
One excuse offered by the right hon. Gentleman—we are so tired of hearing this in this House—is that the reason right hon. Gentlemen opposite do things is that they are guided by the previous Government. The excuse offered, which he felt justified this charge, was that the previous Government had made a charge for dentures and spectacles. I say there is no comparison between what is a once-for-all-time charge, and borne in the main by healthy people, and a charge for treatment for sickness which may continue for weeks; and for life, in the case of a chronically sick person.
No argument which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced this afternoon disguises the fact that the Government now propose to erect a financial barrier between the doctor and the poorest in the community. I thought I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he addressed himself to this proposal many weeks ago. I thought he said that where there was hardship help will be given.
I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to define to this House what is meant by the word "hardship." Every old person in the lowest income groups, whether he is on National Assistance or not, will suffer hardship; and so will all small pensioners, the widows, the blind persons, the orphans, the chronic sick, the epileptics, the diabetics and the tuberculous.
It was the chronic sick who were in the mind of my right hon. Friend when he pressed the Minister to say whether a doctor would be able to prescribe heavily. The point of his question was whether a doctor could give, say, insulin for a diabetic to cover several months on one prescription at a charge of 1s., or whether he could give treatment for an epileptic to cover several months on one prescription.
The right hon. Gentleman, who said that there is no intention of interfering with the treatment of doctors, must realise that there is an ethical side to this business. No doctor, however warm-


warmhearted he may be, can say to a chronic sick person—and these people have to have continuous treatment for the rest of their lives—"I will give you a prescription to cover three months treatment," and then wash his hands of the treatment. Of course, the doctor bears a very heavy responsibility. These people will be called upon to pay 1s. for each prescription every time they see the doctor, which will be very often.
The right hon. Gentleman is placing this heavy burden on the aged and the widows with dependent children. I will take those two groups to begin with. Does the House realise that if the Minister does this he will deny adequate medical care to the old people and the dependent children of widows? We all deplored the fact that the coalminers made a violent protest when this Bill was printed. The responsible leaders of the trade unions asked the coalminers not to do what they had threatened to do, which was to withdraw their labour on Saturdays.
But does the House realise what was in the minds of the coalminers? They were not necessarily thinking of their own wives having to pay 1s. for treatment. They were thinking of the thousands of men disabled through pneumoconiosis, which is another chronic disease. There are thousands of them in the South Wales coalmining area who will be called upon to pay shillings for prescriptions for the rest of their lives. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who said, either to me privately or in the House in the eloquent way he has of expressing himself, "Are these men to be denied for the rest of their lives a little relief in the morning when their disablement is at its height?"
This is the reason why the coalminers made a protest. It is not as many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought. It is not, as they thought, that there is a Communist element which sees this as a way of attacking the Government. It is because they know the position from bitter experience among the men with whom they work. That is the defect of the Government. They are so remote from the lives of the workers that they can frame this legislation, and only at the last moment do they realise that it

will bear so heavily on the poorest in the community.
While I am on this point, I should like to ask the Minister to explain Clause 6, which makes a provision for those in full employment who are unable to meet these charges. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the wage limit below which a worker can apply for repayment?
Now I come to prescribing. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question. If he will read the debate which took place in another place yesterday, he will see that a distinguished doctor addressed himself to this subject and made some recommendation. I always like to be constructive on these matters, and I have given a good deal of thought to this question. I propose to suggest a remedy. I propose to suggest to the Minister exactly what I should do if I was in his place. I do this after having given a great deal of thought to the matter and after having discussed it with many doctors.
Has the Minister considered this factor? Here he is imposing this charge of 1s. on prescriptions which, there is no doubt about it, will bear heavily on thousands of poor families, when he knows that the most flagrant abuse of the scheme exists in the field of prescribing. I say this deliberately. It is an abuse, in the main, by the better-off section of the community at the expense of the worse-off.
He knows, because he addressed the Lincolnshire Division of the B.M.A. I can tell from the speech that he made that he had been informed by his advisers what the position was. He said:
The drug bill has, in fact, got out of control, and it is for this reason that the Government proposed a 1s. charge on prescriptions."—
he did not talk about balancing the Budget then—
The wider question raised by what has happened is whether all this prescribing is really necessary. … There may be pressure by the patient convinced that he cannot get better without a 'bottle,' or high-powered salesmanship by the travelling representatives of the drug manufacturers, or the difficulties today experienced by the doctor in ascertaining the cost of prescribing.
I would not deny that the drug bill of £50 million a year is too high. It is one-eighth of the total expenditure on the


Health Service. But the Minister must know that it was never out of control before 1946, when only the lowest-paid workers were entitled to treatment. It is out of proportion today because, as the right hon. Gentleman has learned, high-powered salesmen on behalf of the drug manufacturers are persuading doctors to prescribe expensive proprietary drugs for their more well-to-do patients.
As most hon. Gentlemen know, every doctor is supplied with a national formulary by the Ministry of Health. It contains economical and adequate prescriptions suitable for most of the complaints with which a doctor is called upon to deal. Today doctors are departing from the national formulary and prescribing unnecessary and expensive drugs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman need not say "Oh." I never make this kind of statement—and a distinguished doctor in another place said something similar—without knowing that my facts are absolutely true.

Dr. H. Morgan: Sorry, but they are not.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend, who always disagrees with all his medical colleagues over everything—

Dr. Morgan: That is not true. I am on the Council of the B.M.A. and take part in their discussions on these matters—simple or intricate. I am elected not by British doctors, whom I frequently oppose politically, but by my medical friends in the West Indies.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to these figures. I leave it to the House to decide. Incidentally, behind me are other hon. Members who are doctors, and perhaps they will address themselves to this point. According to a Ministry of Health report the approximate proportion of proprietary prescriptions under the National Health Insurance Scheme before the war was 3 per cent. This rose to 7 per cent. in 1947 and to 12 per cent. in 1948. By the end of 1949 it was 21 per cent., and today I believe it is over 30 per cent.
Who are consuming the expensive drugs? I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he told the House, quite rightly, that 90 per cent. of the cost of the Health Service came out of the

pockets of the taxpayers. I should like to quote from the memorandum of the Birmingham Executive Committee of the Health Service, which was set up by the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
It is apparent that in those areas, where, prior to 5th July, 1948, the greater proportion of the population were panel patients, the prescription cost was considerably lower than in the better residential areas, where the majority of persons were formerly private patients. This is attributed to the fact that doctors in the more densely populated areas, who were formerly prescribing national formulary preparations, continue to do so, and the remedy is to encourage doctors in the other areas to prescribe these preparations more.
I want to give the evidence, because this is most important. The average cost for a prescription for the whole country is 3s. 8d., and a little inquiry shows that, district for district, there are astonishing variations. Recently, a number of pharmacists practising in seven districts of one large area of Greater London compared the cost of their prescriptions over the last 12 months, and the pharmacists, of course, are only too happy to give the Minister this information, if he wants it, although I know that he does not, because he has already got the information.
In one of these suburban areas of high rateable value, the cost of a prescription was as high as 7s. 6d.; in a favourite residential area on the borders of Middlesex it was 6s.; in a large and varied urban district, it ranged from 2s. 10d. to 4s., while, in a crowded industrial borough, it was as low as 2s. 3d.
Furthermore, may I draw the attention of the Minister to an article in the "British Medical Journal" of 9th February, and I am inclined to think that this article was published for the Minister's benefit. It is on prescribing, and it makes most depressing reading. It constitutes the report of a survey of 17,000 prescriptions on Form E.C.10, which the Minister has mentioned, conducted by the Department of Therapeutics in Edinburgh University by Dr. Dunlop, who was responsible for the review.
It discloses that one prescription alone for Vitamin E cost £14 and that many more cost about £5. His conclusion was the right one. After criticising the position in the country today, due to over-prescribing, he said that good prescribing was often economical prescribing.
It is so easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say "You knew all about this: why did not you do something about it?" I have a good answer. We knew the trend, and we recognised that it was a serious trend, and, if the Minister searches those pigeon-holes again, he will find out what we did. We prohibited the prescribing of proprietary drugs publicly advertised, which, therefore, encourage patients to take them, although they had no great therapeutic value, but it was impossible then to anticipate the means which would be adopted by the drug manufacturers to circumvent us. I think I am right in saying that, during last year, since we introduced that prohibition, the position has considerably worsened.
This over-prescribing is well known. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, because I would have said that, while he was busying himself looking for legislation which the previous Government had discarded for good and proper reasons, he was being out-manoeuvred to the extent of millions of pounds in the wealthy areas of this country. Clearly, the source of the Minister's saving should not be the pockets of the sick poor but the millions of pounds spent on expensive drugs consumed by the better-off people.
I have said that I would conclude this portion of my speech by telling the Minister what to do. I want to give him some good ideas. First, I would revise the national formulary more often, and, if necessary, amplify and modify it. Next, I would instruct chemists not to dispense proprietary drugs unless the doctor indicated that there was no equivalent in the national formulary. Not for one moment do I want to penalise one sick person, whatever the income of that person may be, but if there is an equivalent in the national formulary, then it is gross extravagance to prescribe a prescription costing £14 or even £5, which has to be paid for by the taxpayers of this country.
I have only one more question on prescriptions. The right hon. Gentleman has said that a charge of a shilling will be imposed on every prescription. It is possible for a conscientious doctor to prescribe a few tablets or some ear drops, the cost of which will be under a shilling, but, in order to prescribe that, of course, he must have a consultation with the patient. I want to know whether, in that

case, the patient will be allowed to pay less than a shilling. It is a very important matter to the very poor in the community. The Minister may well say, "I will consider that; it is a very good suggestion," but now I want to show him some of the difficulties he will run into.
If a conscientious doctor has prescribed a few ear drops costing less than a shilling, when the patient goes to pay for the prescription, it will be disclosed for the first time that the cost of the treatment is less than a shilling, and the doctor who gave the prescription will not be very happy at this disclosure, having regard to the fact that he is being paid on a capitation basis. Whether we like it or not, the doctor—and this is one reason why there is heavy prescribing—likes to be persona grata with his patients.
The Minister may say that it would not be fair to the doctor to reveal this, and that, therefore, the shilling must be paid, irrespective of the value of the prescription. In that case, it will not be surprising if the number of prescriptions valued at under a shilling and there are many—disappear altogether, with a consequent loss of money to the Revenue.
There is another point, and this concerns the question of heavy prescribing. While many people will be deterred from going to the doctor, there are others who will not. I can see old age pensioners saying to the doctor, "Do not give me a prescription for an 8 oz. bottle, which is what you always do. Give me a 10 oz. or 12 oz. bottle, or, possibly, even prescribe a 16 oz. bottle." Two 8 oz. bottles would last a week, and, therefore, the cost of prescribing on that basis would be 2s.; but, if the doctor could be persuaded to prescribe one 16 oz. bottle, the cost would only be 1s. But the result would be waste.
I would say that, in this House, there is not a single hon. Member who has not in his bathroom a bottle of tablets, lotion, medicine, ointment or a few bandages unused. No wonder the charge for prescriptions is £50 million a year, and, although the Minister thinks he is making this economical approach and—I am telling him now what our exhaustive inquiries have led up to—although he thinks he is approaching this matter wisely, all he is going to do is to


encourage people to have more medicine, lotions and tablets than they need, and that these will go to clutter up the cupboards of the country.
I cannot believe that the Government have really considered the effect of this mean Measure on the children of the country. During the last few years, the infantile mortality rate in this country has dropped considerably. Last year, we were all proud of the fact that our vital statistics are quoted in other countries, and, only on Friday, a Norwegian journalist came and discussed our vital statistics with me, and I was proud to tell him how good Britain's were.
Infantile mortality has dropped to such an extent that in three quarters last year we established three new low records. I am among the first to recognise the relationship between a low infantile mortality rate and better feeding of our children, but do not let us ignore the fact that since the free National Health Service was introduced no mother in this country has been deterred from a consultation with a doctor on grounds of expense.
To the ordinary housewife every penny counts. As for the gentlemen in the Cabinet who decided this—and this had to be decided at a very high level—I do not believe they realise that a poor housewife in this country has to think not in terms of shillings but in terms of pennies. This charge, of course, will mean she will wait before she summons a doctor, and that means a return to the old method of self-medication, with the inevitable results. I will go as far as to say that if this charge continues this Tory policy will be reflected inevitably in our vital statistics in the years to come.
I come now to National Assistance. I understand that all those on National Assistance will be exempt and certain others will be allowed to claim from the National Assistance Board repayment on presentation of a receipt. Now at least the Minister knew that the procedure was of great importance to this House. He knew he would be asked by his hon. Friends what the procedure would be.
It will be recalled that when I was Minister of National Insurance I was at great pains to assure those people who were entitled to National Assistance that

they could apply for that assistance without their need being disclosed. We made a special provision for this because it was discovered that many people in dire need were not seeking assistance because their pride forbade it. This Bill will expose a person's poverty once more to her neighbours.
The Minister outlined the procedure and I want to know from him if I am absolutely correct in my understanding of it. Perhaps he will say whether I am right or wrong. I hope I am wrong. As I understand it, a poor person will visit a doctor and then a chemist, whom she will inform that she desires a receipt, thereby disclosing her circumstances to the other customers and the staff.
It may be the Minister will devise something to obviate this, but then she may have to visit the Post Office. She may have a book but if she has not a book she may come within the category of a hardship case. Then she goes to the Post Office with a receipt for 1s. or 2s. to claim a refund and once more she will receive unwelcome publicity. [HON. MEMBERS: "They go there anyhow."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are so removed from the lives of the poor—

Mr. Ian MacLeod: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member listens, I will explain. It shocks me to realise how ignorant hon. Members opposite are. They say these people go there anyhow. They certainly go there with a book if they are entitled to assistance, but this Bill makes provision—

Mr. MacLeod: So did the 1951 Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: There is provision in the Bill to cover people who are in full employment. We are now dealing with a Bill which will impose a shilling charge for the first time.

Mr. MacLeod: No.

Dr. Summerskill: We are imposing a charge of a shilling on every prescription. It is no good the hon. Member saying that has happened. Never before has a shilling charge been imposed, and now it is to be imposed. The hon. Member will see from Clause 6 of the Bill that people in receipt of a full wage can obtain repayment.
Let us take the case of a widow in receipt of a full wage. When infectious disease affects two or three of her children she is faced with prescription charges of maybe 3s., 4s. or 6s. a week. She obtains a receipt and she is forced to go to the Post Office or to the Assistance Board, and she reveals to her neighbours what her position is in order to receive repayment. I want to know from the Minister whether that is the provision and whether the policy which the Labour Government adopted, a policy which allows needy people to obtain help without their need being disclosed to a third person, is to be reversed.

Mr. MacLeod: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Surely she must realise that these provisions for National Assistance, that these restrictions on the 1947 Act, and that this power to recover a shilling are taken word for word from the Act passed by the Socialists.

Dr. Summerskill: I am glad of that intervention and I am grateful for the attention of the House. I am also glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I heard a report of what the right hon. Lady had said. In my present position, I have to receive distinguished visitors, and I had an appointment at 5 o'clock. I kept the appointment very briefly and then came at once to the House.

Dr. Summerskill: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and as I would not wish to say anything behind his back I repeat that I said he was the guilty man and that he should be sitting holding the hand of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but if they only came to me I would advise them. The mistake is that the Minister of Health has not a woman to advise him.
This all arises out of the intervention of the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod). He has shown the House better than I can what I meant when I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer conceived this Bill too hastily. I said that it was then thrust on the Minister of Health. What I am saying does not stem from any swotting I have

done during the last week. It comes from the knowledge I acquired through the last few years when I investigated what would happen if the shilling charge were imposed.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West, intervened to say that we introduced the legislation. We did not. We examined the matter very carefully and for all these reasons we rejected it. As the Minister has not intervened to say that the procedure I have outlined is wrong, I presume it is right. On consideration he must realise the heartlessness of this Measure.
Furthermore, has he considered the effort involved for a sick person? Unfortunately, poverty and loneliness too often go together. He is now proposing that a sick person shall go to a doctor once and go to a chemist twice. He no doubt knows what happens in every chemist's shop. The first time the sick person leaves a prescription. At the same time he will ask for a receipt so he returns a second time for a bottle of medicine and a receipt.
Those are two visits that an old sick person has to make. Then there is a third visit to another office for repayment of the charge. Does the Minister understand that old sick people, contemplating these different visits, and knowing what the charge on buses and trams is, will be deterred from attending to obtain treatment?

Mr. G. Lindgren: That does not worry the Tories.

Dr. Summerskill: This is Tory legislation at its worst. In its heartlessness it savours of the old Poor Law, and the underlying principle of the Poor Law, I would remind the House, was to make the application for help in cases of need such an unpleasant process that the aged sick and the needy would rather suffer than seek assistance. Here we are, back to the 19th century, back to the same methods adopted in those times by the Tories.

Mr. Lindgren: Back to the Poor Law.

Dr. Summerskill: If I cannot reach the hearts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, may I remind them of this? I know this will appeal to them. Not only will this transaction prove a burden on the poor


patient; it will absorb the valuable time of the chemists. The chemists will have another form to fill in, and the Minister of Health will soon receive representations from the chemists of this country asking for a higher prescription charge.
I asked a London chemist what he considered was the average number of prescriptions dispensed by him. He said about 75. For a high proportion of prescriptions in the poor areas a receipt will be requested. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to face the fact that there will be a bigger administrative cost. Furthermore, not only will the chemists be asking for higher pay, but there will be the loss of time of the officials in the Post Office and the National Assistance Board refunding shillings.
Now I turn to day nurseries. The Minister dismissed this subject in about a couple of sentences. Does he realise the true position? He dismissed it because he believed, as so many hon. Members opposite believe, that day nurseries are used by lazy women. They feel that the day nursery is a place where women can park their children while they earn high wages. Has he examined the facts? I am sure he has not, because he has not had time.
Let me give well documented facts of what the real position is. The Minister who is to wind up may well say that the previous Government reduced the accommodation in day nurseries on grounds of expense. But when we did this we recognised that there were certain mothers and children who should have acess to day nurseries.
Let me illustrate the point. Since the advent of the present Government and their policy of cuts in the social services, the Kent County Council proposed to close all its day nurseries, and the result was that the women who were using the day nurseries in Kent demonstrated in the streets. Let us see what kind of family Kent caters for. I trust the Minister will listen to this, and if he likes he can have all these documents.
In a nursery in Kent likely to be closed—the decision has been postponed until May—of the 42 children attending the nursery, the mothers of three were dead; the parents of 21 were divorced

or separated; the mothers of two were widows; 14 of the children had unmarried mothers and two of the mothers were crippled. Those were the reasons why those children were admitted.
Let us look at other nurseries under the London County Council. This is typical of them all. In 5 per cent. of the cases the mother was in hospital, in 6 per cent. the father was in the Forces, in 6 per cent. the father was in prison, in 9 per cent. the mother was a widow, in 14 per cent. there was an inadequate joint income, in 15 per cent. the father was disabled, in 17 per cent. the child had an unmarried mother, and in 28 per cent. the child had been deserted by the father.
Can the Minister justify penalising this tragic little army of mothers and children? This is not economy. This is a short-sighted policy. These are the children who, if neglected now, will fill our Borstal institutions and prisons. This is a time when the Minister and the Chancellor must recognise that this service is a good investment.
Where will the children of the unmarried mothers go if we do not undertake some responsibility for them? Unfortunate young women with a stigma placed upon them will go to find minders. These are the children for whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have responsibility. [Laughter.] I apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have been worse if I had said the Minister of Health.
I apologise for keeping the House, but I must say something about surgical appliances. The Minister of Health cast an eye upon me and said—I was longing to support him on this, but I could not—that women were having abdominal belts which were not necessary. That is absurd. Women do not wear abdominal belts or surgical boots unless they are necessary. Furthermore, they do not try to get them because they want to get the maximum from the Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that equipment of this nature is ordered by a specialist for the patient, and it is a burden to be endured, not sought.
By the way, when the Minister told the House that surgical boots would be charged for and that this was only fair


because people have to wear boots anyhow, he had apparently not been reminded—I am told this is a fact—that surgical boots need more frequent repairing than ordinary ones. I should like later to be given the evidence to prove that this part of the service is abused.
I now come to the Dental Service, with which I believe my right hon. Friend will be dealing at some length later. Let me say something about these cuts. It is proposed to charge up to £1 for dental treatment. Who will be most affected by this charge? Certainly not the better off. The most serious consequences will be that people who hitherto during the last year or two have gone for a regular inspection will not go in the future. They will have second thoughts about going when they realise that it will cost them £1.
Furthermore, has the Minister considered that it will pay people, in terms of hard cash, to delay treatment, for while three fillings done on three different occasions will cost £3, three arising out of one examination will cost only £1. I am sure he has not thought of that. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has put a premium on neglect. We are all glad, of course, that the adolescent has been exempted. I have already said what I think about that. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken advice earlier from his experts, any doctor in his Department could have told him that they should not have been included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) asked about school dentists. I suppose it is very attractive to some people when they are told that if this Bill is introduced the number of patients will decline, as of course they will, and the dentists will be forced into the School Dental Service. I understand that the rates of pay in the school medical service are £800 to £1,200, whereas the average figure of gross earnings of dentists is about £220 a month. Therefore, there must be a time lag before this transference takes place, and, meanwhile, irreparable harm will be done.
I will conclude by saying that during the whole of this century, the enlightened section of the medical profession, the social workers of the country, the people who worked in voluntary organisations at the beginning of the century and

Government Departments also, have emphasised the need to approach disease from the preventive angle and have instanced the importance of dental treatment. Today, the Conservative Government have taken a retrograde step calculated to destroy a social service which is an indispensable part of a healthy community.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: It is a great comfort to me in my highly nervous state to reflect that at any rate in a few minutes' time I shall be able to give one answer to one question, though it is rather a personal one. I shall be able to answer those constituents who with irritating frequency keep coming to a new Member and asking, "Have you spoken yet?" I am advised that a new Member exercising his privilege on these occasions must be very careful not to say anything controversial.
Many hon. Members present here today do, I am sure, look back already on many powerful speeches and regard them in a regal way from their safe and large majorities. But they do, perhaps, remember how very naked and defenceless they felt when they were in my shoes. They could not fill up the gaps in rhetoric and oratory by a little bit of prejudice or abuse. They could not resent the fact that other hon. Members were not paying attention by leaning forward and saying with a great lack of self-consciousness, "You baboons." They could not win the headlines—sometimes I believe the principal object of a speech—by rounding on their own Front Bench and describing their own right hon. Friends in that historic phrase as "squalid Tammany Hall bosses." All these things are denied to me on this occasion, and I appreciate that my contribution is only a cup of cold water which will be dashed into the fiery furnace of this debate.
Let me now say something—for I am afraid I must since it is expected of me—about the topic which we are discussing today. I have three things to say about this Bill. I daresay none of them is very novel, but I do not believe that is necessarily objectionable. The first is that the Bill itself is not a novel Bill. One has only to read the first few lines of it to realise that it extends "the existing powers." In my submission, it is a Bill which should not excite controversy over


its principle, but only over its details. Whether in fact the details are wise or not is, of course, a matter for full discussion.
My second point is that this Bill is not to be a shackle on the National Health Service for ever. It is clear from Clause 3 that, to a large extent, it is experimental. Clause 3 says that the Minister shall have power to vary the amount to be charged under this Measure or under any other regulations, and that he may direct that it shall cease to be payable. It is therefore a Bill which explores methods of making the National Health Service even better than it is today and assures its solvency.
The third thing about it is that when I look at the National Health Service Estimates—I have no experience of these matters—although I see that there is to be a decrease under heading D of the General Medical heading, it is counterbalanced by the other payments which are, in fact, being made to the credit and thus there is in the end a credit. It is an interesting comment on Parliamentary discussion that the total figures are so rarely brought into operation.
That leaves me to say only this. I do not suppose that anybody in this House really thinks that the last word has been said about the administration of the social services, and, in particular, of the National Health Service. We know—and it is idle to pretend that it is always the other side that makes mistakes—great advances were made in the National Health Service as conducted under the leadership of hon. Members opposite. Of course, they made a great contribution. I do not believe they are so vain as not to know that there are some things that could be adjusted and improved. We are all trying to improve the service, and, as has already been said, get value for our money. In that, surely, we are all together.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill)—I was rather jealous that she should have taken my point—dealt with the question of expensive drugs. I have been told by medical practitioners in my constituency that there is the great danger that an ordinary drug which can be paid for under an ordinary prescription is not

being prescribed, and that instead an expensive proprietary drug is prescribed. Ordinary general practitioners have said that there is a great leakage there. I believe that matter has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, and it was certainly mentioned in another place. It is something that has to be done as part of the scheme. It is another experiment or progression to be made.
In the same way I am told by the surgeons and medical practitioners I meet that in Manchester there are instances of over-staffing and of duplication, and that great savings could be made in the hospital services in that respect. Quite frankly, I am personally uneasy about the charges in respect to old age pensioners. I know it has been said that it is administratively impossible to exclude them. I am puzzled by this because I am told that it is done in Northern Ireland. A different coloured prescription form is used. One is free and the other is not. Therefore, I am not wholly satisfied as yet that it is administratively impossible to exclude old age pensioners. Whether there are other reasons for not doing so is, of course, another matter and should perhaps have to be taken into account in the whole picture.
In many countries some charge is made. In New Zealand, in Denmark, and even in the Isle of Man a charge is made, and according to the best information I have received there has not, as yet, been any increased mortality in the Isle of Man on that account.
The truth of course is, as the right hon. Lady said, that there are bound to be some cases of hardship in human affairs There is unfairness, there is hardship, there is loss of dignity at times—of course there is. It is a thing to be avoided, but in my submission it is not a thing upon which to base the economy of the country today because, as I see it, we are fighting a very stern battle today. We are, not tomorrow or next year, but today, under the black shadow of financial disaster.
Hon. Members will remember, or at least some of them will, that in the old days that great Commoner, William Pitt, just before he died, was told of the result of the Battle of Austerlitz, and he turned to his secretary and said, "Roll up the map of Europe, it will not be required


these 20 years." If we fail this year to stave off financial disaster we can roll up our National Health Service Act, because it will not be wanted for 20 years; we should have no money, only chaos and disaster.
That is a right way, surely, in which we should meet this problem. It is not for me, perhaps, as a new Member, to say anything about the functions of the House, but personally I feel that our functions in this battle are rather limited, though we can help in a small way. The battle is to be won in the fields and the factories and the homes and the churches. We can set a standard here: we can give a lead; we can do no more. We can say, "Shall we talk reasonably, shall we be patient, shall we be fair?"; and if we do that, the country will pay attention to what we say. But if we sit here and discuss these matters viciously and with cleverness, with hate and and with spite, what do we expect from the country?
Hon. Members, who have been very patient with me, and indeed I am grateful, will excuse me if I make what is probably an awful mistake for a young Member to make, and that is to refer to Shakespeare. Perhaps other Members have done so on these occasions. I want to refer to those fine lines in "King John":
This England never did, nor never shall
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror.
We all remember that. Do we remember the next line?
But when it first did help to wound itself.
It is a grave responsibility for us this year, under this financial crisis. It is we who must see that we do not give way to too much irritation, prejudice and passion, and it is we who must make sure that the Commons of England are not the first to wound our country.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: May I, on behalf of the whole House, congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) upon his most entertaining and instructive speech? He spoke with such ease and with such confidence that I am quite sure that all his friends must be delighted with him. We look forward to hearing him on some other occasions when the rules of combat will enable us to hit back.
The House will perhaps forgive me—indeed they will probably be relieved to know it—when I say that I shall not be able to address them at any length today because the medical profession have not assisted me very greatly in the last week. It is, therefore, perhaps appropriate that we should be talking about the National Health Service Bill this afternoon.
At the beginning I want to make one reference to a subject with which the Minister closed his speech, because it seems to me to be one which overshadows the whole of this debate—and it is the recent arbitration award which gave the general practitioners £10 million a year more and £40 million altogether in back money. I do not want to reflect upon the arbitrator because it is not his responsibility, but I believe that that award has shocked the majority of people in Great Britain.
Something has gone wrong with the sense of values in this country when we can confer £40 million upon one branch of the medical profession and at the same time propose to impose charges on old age pensioners. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, because my quarrel in this matter is very largely with the Treasury. It is not with the Minister of Health, because innocence and ignorance exempts him from attack, but I have a quarrel with the Treasury because I consider that this year, last year and the year before, the Treasury, and the Treasury alone, have been responsible for this violation of one of the chief pieces of architecture of the Welfare State.
That is not because of the fact that the Treasury is safeguarding the national finances, because that is the Treasury's job, but because the Treasury is so ignorantly manned that it has not adjusted its conventions and its principles to the extent to which the State has now intervened in so many practical fields. In the old days, it was quite easy for the Treasury to be sagacious, because all it need do was to increase or reduce a few taxes. Therefore, all we required at the Treasury were arithmeticians who could add or deduct.
Unfortunately, that is all we have got there now, but with this difference—and I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to try to seize the significance of this, because I have put it over and over and over again—that to


the extent to which the State intervenes in practical fields of administration, physical factors must be taken into account in adding up the sums.
That is why I resisted in Committee, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) knows, against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, a proposal to put compulsory arbitration into the National Health Service scheme. I objected on two grounds. In the first instance, it was because every trade unionist knows that there is nothing so ruinous of conciliation machinery as a compulsory arbitration clause. Once that is there, negotiating skill is no longer necessary. Each party refuses to budge, knowing that finally the compulsory arbitration clause can be made operative, and all negotiations end.
That is the first point, and, as hon. Gentlemen know, I resisted that all along the line, although I was exposed then, as now, to the most malicious misrepresentation in the Press. Although letters were being written by eminent members of the medical profession demanding that this tyrannous power of the Minister to make regulations should not be permitted; although we had all that agitation, nevertheless I refused to do so because I thought it would destroy the Whitley machinery, I thought it would ruin relationships between the Government and the medical profession and secondly—and this is the most important reason of all, of which the Treasury ought to take note—because it puts the Budget outside the House. We have just been told today that the sacred ceiling has now gone. It was so sacred last year. I am very anxious, naturally, not to make an attack on the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he also had been at the Treasury for so short a time that he had not been able to acquire sufficient control over it, and he bought the idea of a ceiling.
What does a ceiling mean? A ceiling means a figure that must last more than two Estimates. That is the meaning of it—that a spending Department must suit its behaviour to the fact that not only in that particular year but for a number of years that is the figure it must not exceed. I am glad that the Chancellor is in his seat. Does he mean that by ceiling? I should like to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."]—

because his ceiling has already been busted—and it has not been done by the House of Commons. It has been done by somebody outside. Really, this is not good enough. This really is crazy nonsense, that the House of Commons should be outside this control so—

6.2 p.m.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1952.

2. Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1952.

4. Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Question again proposed. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to conclude the point I was making which I myself and, I think, most hon. Members would regard as one of very great substance, that is, that now that the State is entering into either direct or indirect contractual relationship with so very many people, it ought not to put so large a proportion of the Budget outside its control and leave some outside body or person to decide the Chancellor's Budget for him.
Indeed, this was discussed, as I said earlier, at some length, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were then in opposition, withdrew their own suggestions and Amendments in consideration of what I then said:
I specifically said yesterday that by the division we had woven into the 1946 Act the doctors were not in contract with the Crown;"—
in fact this division was made in order that the doctors might not become civil servants and suffer Civil Service disabilities—
that they were in contract with the regional hospital boards and the executive councils."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1949, Standing Committee B: c. 1727.]


I said then that the Minister could not be indifferent to the demands made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer by an arbitrary decision over so wide and important a field. It is not a question of the Crown. It is not, therefore, a mere matter of a constitutional quibble, but when we bring in so many as 400,000 people into direct contractual relationship with the State, the only way in which we can hope to get the finances of the nation under proper control is by always reserving the right of the Government to refuse to accept any recommendation made by an outside body.
It is to my mind lamentable that we should now be faced with an enormous bill of this description which makes nonsense of our discussions here. I am not saying that the general practitioners were not entitled to an advance; I think they were. I myself said when I was Minister of Health that if any funds were available for the improvement of the situation in any part of the National Health Service, the general practitioners had the first claim, but there is all the difference in the world between providing a reasonable increase in their remuneration and adding this enormous sum which would be an irritant in every industrial negotiation in Great Britain.
The fact is that the gap between professional awards and manual workers' standards is getting too wide. It also should be borne in mind that we now have a different situation from what we had before, because very large numbers of professional workers are now educated at the expense of the State. They no longer have to give up earning money for many years in order to equip themselves, because while they are undergraduates they are kept by the State in better conditions than many of the manual workers providing the grants for them. So the judge and those bodies who are arbitrating on professional standards are really arbitrating on their salaries, because what they are attempting to do is to maintain their own status and own standards.
But the constitutional implications for us are exceedingly serious. The reason I brought the Treasury into this matter so clearly was because—I will be quite frank with the House—we have been the victims of this Treasury behaviour. I said last year, and I was attacked for it by some of my own

friends, that when I accepted the 1s. prescription charge I was manoeuvring, but I would rather manoeuvre to have Socialism than manoeuvre to destroy it.
What was the situation when we discussed the Bill? I made it so clear that hon. Members opposite thought that I was not quite serious about my proposals. Neither was I. I will tell the House why. Once more all that the Treasury—all these clever gentlemen—had done was to look at the number of prescriptions and then to say, "Now, if we charge 1s. for each of them we shall get £10 million." Any fool could have done that. It means just so many prescriptions, a bob for each one and so much money for the Treasury. It was no good arguing with them. It has been no good arguing with them since then because the physical and administrative implications which lie in the field of the spending departments do not preoccupy the Treasury. They just arrive at the simple sum and then demand it.
There is a way of saving money on the Health Service which has no administrative complexities, although I do not approve of it. The simple logical thing to do is to put a certain service outside the Health Service. We can say, for example, that we cannot afford to provide any dental treatment and that we cannot afford to provide any drugs, and then put them outside the Health Service. It is easy. Let the public pay. Mark this, I do not approve of it. I am only pointing out that we ought to begin to get some administrative sense into this and the Treasury ought to get some; but what we cannot do is to have a service half in and half out, because, once we start that, all kinds of administrative difficulties arise.
When we discussed the Bill behind which the Government are now so eagerly sheltering, I said that there were difficulties which are inherent in the regulations. I said that I had been asked a number of questions as to how I proposed to use the power which imposed the charge on prescriptions. I pointed out that if I could give the answers, there would be no excuse for my not having had the regulations ready, but I did not then know all the answers and before the scheme could be made a practicable one it would have to be discussed with representatives of the chemists and the doctors to see how it was to be worked out.
What we were faced with was a demand from the Treasury, which, as my right hon. Friend has just said, turned out to be so administratively complex that it was not worth going on with, which is exactly what we thought all the time. There was no legerdemain and no concealment. I explained all that to the House. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs saw that what I was saying was a defence against imposing the regulations. So it was. We realised that we could not charge old age pensioners; we could not invoke all the massive machinery of the Assistance Board in order to decide whether an old age pensioner, an unemployed person or a sick person was 1s. this or the other side of a line.
But that is what the Government are proposing to do. They do not know how much money they will save. They have not told us, and they do not know. All they know is that millions of people will be plagued, tormented and humiliated quite unnecessarily merely in order to give the Conservative Party another excuse to invade the National Health Service, which they have wanted to do all the time. It seems to me that the whole scheme with which we are presented is based upon a mean-spirited attitude towards the social services.
I do not know why hon. Members in all parts of the House, even on the other side of the House, do not take a pride in what is happening. After all, this was a very great experiment, one of the greatest experiments in human behaviour that the world has ever seen. It was said, "It is too dangerous to trust poor folk with free this, free that and free the other; they will abuse it, bring it down in ignominy and destroy it."
What are the facts? The first full year's experience of the National Health Service enabled us to predict the medical behaviour of 46 million for the next year—after only one full year. It is true that we had Supplementary Estimates in the first two years, but we had not had one full year's experience at that time.
After only one year's experience I was able to give an Estimate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which held good for the whole of the next year's expendi-

ture In other words, the British people had disclosed a predictable pattern of behaviour after only one year's experience. Yet, instead of people being proud of it, and instead of our saying, "Here are fine people who are beginning intelligently to use this free service," the scheme has been spat upon and abused ever since without any justification at all.
In 1950–51 the expenditure on the dental service and the ophthalmic service was falling, and it had been falling for some time. In other words, the level of the expenditure had merely been due to the fact that we were working off arrears of neglect. The same thing was true of artificial limbs. It was not true of the pharmaceutical side. We know many of the reasons for that; my right hon. Friend has given many of them.
In the first place, it is because the medical profession is an ill-disciplined profession. I say that advisedly, with more experience of it than most. That is not entirely the reason for the rise on the pharmaceutical side. Suppose the amount is £4 or £5 million a year; that is £4 or £5 million a year out of a gross expenditure of £450 million.
Is that any reason for destroying the essence of the Health Service? The reason for the increase on the pharmaceutical side in the last few years lies mainly in the enormous increase in the use of anti-biotics, streptomycin, auromycin, and penicillin; not only the sulphonamides but also the anti-biotics. Very expensive new drugs are coming into existence, and they are very largely responsible for keeping a number of old folk alive, and also young folk as well.
What is being said by some writers on medical finances? They are saying that the nation cannot afford this. They say, in effect, "Let us have a selective list of dying. Let the poor die first." That is what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say. The order of their priorities is, "If you cannot keep all of them alive, keep only the well-to-do alive." That is what they did before, and it is what they will do now. That is exactly what is behind all this.
I thought that a mistake had been made last year, but there was something to be said for what the Labour Government did. They decided to put a term to this. They said, "We will keep it on until 1954, and then we will end it,


because we believe that by then we shall be out of our troubles." What are this miserable crowd doing? They are keeping it on permanently. They put hoardings all over the country a few years ago saying, "We fought for the Health Service." Who are they fighting now? They are fighting the poor. At a moment when unemployment is growing all over Great Britain, these health charges are being imposed.
People look only at one side of the balance sheet all the time. They are always looking at the expenditure side. They cannot see the other side of the balance sheet. The other side is to be found in growing productivity year after year in Great Britain because our people are healthier.
I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider what is going to happen when these Regulations are in operation. It would be sheer demagogy to suggest that we ought to consider only the electoral results of what we do. I believe that Members of this House should consider first what is in the nation's interests and afterwards what the electorate will think about it. Do hon. Members really believe that they can convince this nation that paupers should be victimised while at the same time millionaires are let off from taxation? Is that on their order of priorities? There is no majority for that in this country.
If the Conservative Government went to the nation tomorrow on this they would be decisively defeated, not because the people want something for nothing, but because the people were beginning to take a decent sense of pride in the fact that every person in this country had access to the best that medical knowledge could provide without let or hindrance of cash. That was something of which everybody, including the Conservatives, were beginning to be proud. Now the Conservatives are proceeding to pull it down. Where it will stop, I do not know.
We have heard a lot of nonsense about the school dental service. More rubbish has been talked about that. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that a large number of children are going to the dentist in the ordinary way, which is what we wanted to happen, for the school dental service was not what it

was cracked up to be; it had grave deficiencies, which was one of the reasons I always intended to assimilate it into the wider scheme, keeping the dental inspectors in the schools to report on the school children. We are told that there are not enough dentists, but we did not have enough even when the curve was rising. I am informed that many dentists are not now even fully employed. I am informed that for some time the lists have been falling.
Once more the Treasury have got it wrong, because once more the little men were adding up their silly sums and not realising that from the start off it was the physical facts which came first of all. Then they could work out their sums afterwards. That is why it is ridiculous to take this step for the sake of saving money. How much is going to be saved? We do not know, because nobody knows. At a time when we are spending £1,500 million a year on making weapons of war, we cannot afford £20 million a year to keep a free Health Service going. It is nonsense. It does not make sense. In fact, the arms programme of Great Britain is now being made by the Conservative Government into an excuse to dismantle the Welfare State.
As everyone knows who cares to look up this matter at all, one of the reasons why in this country we have a sound Parliamentary democracy and why the Communist Party does not grow here is because we have introduced into our social life a greater sense of equity than on the Continent of Europe. The party opposite are taking the first long step in establishing in this country the beginnings of the end of British Parliamentary government.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I want to deal closely and with relish with the vulgar, crude and intemperate speech to which the House of Commons has just listened. Before I come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—and I acknowledge freely that he represents what I may call the real opposition to this Measure—there are one or two matters to which I should like to call the attention of the House.
I am told that apart from the Socialist Opposition, the Liberals are to oppose this Bill. I expect that in the course of the evening we shall have a speech from


the Liberal benches. I should like to remind the Liberal spokesman of something and I should like him to deal with it when he speaks. When I knew that the Liberals were to oppose the Bill, I looked to see what part they took on the National Health Service Bill last year. For many hours we debated it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading. Nine minutes of that time was occupied by the Liberals. There was one Liberal speech on Second Reading. It was described as a very helpful speech and it supported the Bill.
Turning up the Liberal candidates' handbook for the General Election on 1950 I found this paragraph about the health charges:
Until expansion would be financially possible partial charges could be made to adult patients, reduced in cases of need for some services such as the general dental service (reserving a free priority service for expectant mothers and children), for spectacles, use of ambulances and hospital board and lodging.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Tell us what the Tories said.

Mr. MacLeod: I will do that, too. I should like the Liberal spokesman to explain if that still represents Liberal policy.
I want to deal first of all with the opposition which comes from the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who opened this debate, is not in her place, but I can address these questions to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who I understand is to speak. He must have read very unhappily the speeches that he made a year ago in this House. He knows perfectly well a year ago he received the full support of this side of the House for his Bill. We knew exactly where he was going, and those who sat behind him knew perfectly well, too.

Mr. Marquand: I know perfectly well that I explained in detail why a prescription charge was not merely unworkable but undesirable, and I know perfectly well that I explained why a charge on appliances would be inhumane as well as thoroughly undesirable. As for a charge for dental treatment, that never entered my head. I never thought that anyone could think of anything so insane.

Mr. MacLeod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will deal with all those points one by one. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to be allowed to escape the dilemma in which he is now. Does he not remember a year ago coming to this House and explaining that the gap was £30 million; that the Chancellor could only give him £7 million; that he had a gap of £23 million left and he hoped first of all to cut the forecasts for the regional hospitals boards by £10 million—incidentally, he went into the Lobby on Tuesday against the Minister of Education for the same thing—that he found himself with a deficiency of £13 million and that he wanted money for the hospitals? That is a clear summary of his case, and he then said it would be self-deception and deception of the House of Commons to say that this money could be found elsewhere than by charges.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, and the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up for the Opposition have not so far attempted to argue that there should not be a limit on the National Health Service. They have not dared to argue that the ceiling placed by Sir Stafford Cripps, before Korea, maintained by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in the surplus year 1950, and maintained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year should go.
But the logic of events presses just as closely on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health as it did on the right hon. Gentleman opposite a year ago. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman wanted £13 million for the Health Service and he wanted to spend £15 million more on hospitals. He found that money by charges. This year, my right hon. Friend wants to spend, even taking into account certain fairly small cuts in the capital account of the hospitals, £20 million more. Governments can change in a year, but logic cannot, and the problem that confronts my right hon. Friend is exactly the same as that which confronted the right hon. Gentleman opposite a year ago.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman opposite to answer a question when he winds up for the Opposition. In these circumstances, following the thesis he put to the House a year ago, what exactly would be do to get this £20 million? There are


only two places—and he knows this perfectly well—where the money can be found in the National Health Service. The first is in what is called the "hotel charge" in hospitals. The second is by a fee for consultation with a doctor.
We should dearly like to know from the right hon. Gentleman tonight which of these solutions, or what alternative solution, he would choose. He can consult the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) of a year ago, because that hon. Gentleman saw the dilemma coming and expressed it very nearly in the terms in which I have expressed it. We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he would do, and where he would find the £20 million.
The history of the charges in the National Health Service is by no means complicated. Here I want to come more closely to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I would like before I start to say that I am delighted that he has recovered sufficiently to be at this debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), who quoted Shakespeare today will agree that to have a debate on the National Health Service without the right hon. Gentleman would be like putting on Hamlet with no one in the part of the First Gravedigger.
Let me deal first with the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt, in passing, that this Measure is connected with the Chancellor's Budget. He said that in some ways it is a miserable Budget, because it makes the rich richer. It really does not lie in the mouth of a member of a party whose Budgets for successive years were the delight of the speculator and the joy of the spiv, to say that.
The first mention of charges in this connection was, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in the 1949 Budget speech of Sir Stafford Cripps, when that right hon. Gentleman said:
There is, indeed, a very good argument for imposing some special charge or tax. …"—
my right hon. Friend has quoted this—
but … we should await the outcome of another year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April. 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2093.]
Now we come to 24th October, 1949, the beginning of the proposal of the charge for prescriptions. The Leader of

the Opposition, who was Prime Minister at the time, announced in this House—no "ifs," no "buts" about it—that they were going to save £10 million, with certain exemptions, from the pharmaceutical service. He added:
The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and Chemists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted it, and said he shuddered to think of the cascades of medicine that were pouring down our throats. He has been shuddering for 28 months, because it has been going on all the time. It is just not true that the cost of drugs is the major influence in the cost of the pharmaceutical service. The cost of drugs has gone up, in the period that we are discussing, from £35 million to £50 million or £51 million, and the number of prescriptions has gone up from 202 million, to 207 million, and now to 229 million. The case for the shilling charge is much stronger now than it was then.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House of what happened on Friday, 9th December, 1949, when this charge was put on in another place and was brought to this House, when there was an attempt to shuffle it through without any discussion at all. There was a vote at the end, and it was 138 to nine. The debate is worth reading. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted what he said. I recommend every hon. Member of this House to turn up his speeches. It is true that if we read now we can find, like raisins in a bun, arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman why this charge was impracticable; but he knew something at the time that nobody else did. He knew that he was going behind the back of his Cabinet and his leader to defraud the House of Commons.

Mr. Bevan: That really is a most unworthy statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] In point of fact it was the Treasury Committee which was appointed to try to work out the practicability of the proposals that reported them impracticable.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. MacLeod: I have nothing to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman


has been a long time in this House and I do not think that he objects to this form of debating at all.
I want to take up his next point. In the Budget speech of 1950, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
It is not proposed to impose any charge immediately … since it is hoped that a more easily administered method of economising … can be introduced shortly.
He was referring to the Cohen Committee. He went on:
The power to charge will, of course, remain so that it can be used later if it is needed."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 60.]
The Cohen Committee has now become the official alibi of the Socialist Party for their muddle over the prescription charges. The Leader of the Opposition, in a most extraordinary statement to the Rouse—I gave him notice that I would raise this point—on 31st January, 1952, gave as the most important reason why this charge was not introduced, that the Cohen Committee was set up and was managing to restrict from the drugs which could be prescribed a great many things which were not drugs. He said:
We did get a closer hand on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 380.]
Let us look at how they got a closer hand on it. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware—I know that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is—that the Cohen Committee was set up not after October, 1949, when we had this proposal but in July, 1949, and it had been going for four months at the time of this proposal. The Committee's first Interim Report, which has not been published, was in December, 1949, and there have been four other reports since. The terms of reference of the Cohen Committee bore not the slightest relationship to the main problem which was before the House at the time.
It was the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale himself who said, in the debate of 9th December:
It is aspirins, bandages and so forth, costing less than a 1s. which in a large number of cases could have been purchased by the patient. … That is where the abuse Lies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2263.]
The terms of reference of the Cohen Committee had nothing to do with that sort of problem.
The Cohen Committee have not succeeded as we know, in reducing in any way the flow of drugs or the money spent on drugs, but the Cohen Committee have succeeded in doing admirable work in excluding from the National Health Service such things as glucose, whole-meal bread, disinfectants, toilet preparations and the like. That is the contribution which is being made, and if that is what the Leader of the Opposition calls getting a closer hand on it then no wonder the pharmaceutical service and other things are in the mess they are.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he has pointed out clearly to us that there has been a great and steady increase in the numbers of prescriptions issued in the service. Would he, at the same time, give corresponding fall in self-medication, both in cost and numbers, if he has any conception of it?

Mr. MacLeod: The fall in self-medication is not something that can be gleaned from the Estimates, but I am not dodging that point. I will come back to it in a few minutes because I appreciate the importance of dealing with that matter.
The history of the dental charge is much more simple. Here I want to put an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not doing so in any hostile spirit. It is something I genuinely want to know and have always wanted to know. The Coalition White Paper in February, 1944, in words similar to the ones which the right hon. Gentleman used on Second Reading in 1946, said that a full dental service remained a proper objective, but that there were not enough dentists. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman used these words:
We have not enough dentists and it will therefore be necessary for us in the meantime to give priority treatment to certain classes—expectant and nursing mothers, children, school children in particular, and later on we hope adolescents. Finally we trust that we shall be able to build up a dental service for the whole population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 45.]
That seems to me to be about as good sense as has been talked about dentistry, in this House of Commons or anywhere else, but it also seems to me to be a proposal that there should be a half in and


half out service which the right hon. Gentleman condemned in his speech tonight. Everything that has happened in the Dental Service stems from the failure to obey what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading.
It is from that that the cuts in remuneration came; it is from that the School Dental Service reduction has come; it is from that that an honoured profession has become a music-hall joke; it is from that the 1951 Act and the 1952 Bill come. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House why it was that he failed to carry out the undertaking he gave to this House about the dental services on the Second Reading of the Act.

Mr. Bevan: I anticipated that point in the statement I made. It was discovered that dentists were leaving the School Dental Service not merely on account of the National Health Service. They were leaving it long before the National Health Service came into operation, because the outside dental profession was much more attractive than the School Dental Service. I could not in fact have provided the priority services without taking over many functions from the local authorities. I should have had to take them over entirely. It was therefore much simpler to take the whole population into the dental service and work off the hump, and the hump has been worked off.

Mr. MacLeod: I am grateful for that explanation but it is entirely inaccurate. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, certainly it is. First, the figures of the right hon. Gentleman about the School Dental Service are inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman made a great reputation in the previous two Parliaments by always speaking at the end of the health debates and never answering any points. He is much less effective when he comes down into the arena. First, he does not know the figures. In 1939 there were 866 dentists in the School Dental Service. It is true that the figure now is not much less, 40 or 50 were the last figures I saw. But the figure at the end of 1947, before the pull of the National Health Service drew the dentists and the potential dentists away from the School Dental Service, was about 1,060, and it is from that figure down to the low one of 810 we have

now that is the measure of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his guarantees.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Baird: rose—

Mr. MacLeod: Just a moment. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is in need of care and protection.

Mr. Bevan: No. Will the hon. Gentleman give the school population at the same time?

Mr. MacLeod: At the end of 1947 the number of dental officers was 1,063, equivalent to 921 full-time officers. Up to that time the number had been increasing rapidly. At the end of 1948, when the National Health Service started, it was down to 1,026 and by the end of 1949 it had dropped still further to 884—

Mr. Manuel: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point would he—

Mr. Baird: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. MacLeod: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bevan: But the hon. Gentleman is assuming all the time that the children who were formerly dealt with by the school dental officers were not dealt with. Very large numbers of them were dealt with in the general Health Service itself.

Mr. MacLeod: That is utterly ineffective. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it is. The right hon. Gentleman simply does not know what he is talking about. When I deal with the effect of these charges I shall deal with that point as well. For the moment I will only say this to the right hon. Gentleman: He went down about a month ago to explain his conduct in this House to his constituents—something which I gather is in the nature of an annual event. Unless "The Times" of Monday, 10th March, misrepresented him, he said this:
When we come to debate the National Health Service cuts, I assure you I will not be restrained by any previous commitments made by anyone.
Nobody can complain about the enthusiasm with which the right hon. Gentleman started to carry out his plans,


because he made it quite clear that he was not going to be restrained even by the commitments he made himself.

Mr. Baird: The hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice, and he is misleading the House. He knows quite well that the School Dental Service was always the Cinderella of the dental profession and that we had never had an efficient school dental service in this country. He also knows that a large proportion of the children today are being treated by the ordinary dentist in his surgery and the health of the schoolchildren today is higher than it was before.

Mr. MacLeod: Of course the health of the schoolchildren is higher today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dentally."] Dentally, medically and in every other way. So it was last year and the year before and throughout the century.
Of this question of the School Dental Service and whether these proposals will be effective, which is in my view, the main justification for these proposals if there is one, I will speak later. I want to come to the 1951 Bill. Mr. Speaker, do you recall that on the occasion of that Bill the Opposition held on the Floor of the House one of what are laughably referred to as their private Parliamentary meetings? This was a great convenience for hon. Members because, although explanations of these meetings in the Press are unusually full, they are rarely verbatim and they do not include the Division lists. But we can see exactly what happened at the end of the day a year ago when these proposals were before the House. We can see exactly how much the froth and the speeches were worth.
The general tenor of hon. Members who spoke against the Bill was, shortly, that they disliked the Bill a great deal but that they preferred the Bill to a Tory Government.

Mr. Fernyhough: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacLeod: I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees, because it has obviously escaped him that he has ended with both the Bill and with a Tory Government. The Bill, as was the case last year, is to some extent dominated—

It being Seven o'Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO TRIBE CHIEFTAINSHIP)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move (under Standing Order No. 9), "That this House do now adjourn."
I move this Motion in order that the House may consider the action taken by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in deposing Seretse Khama as chief of the Bamangwato tribe. In my view, the statement made this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will have very severe repercussions in Africa, but, at any rate, there will be one thing to mitigate the effect of that statement. It is that the House of Commons, in the middle of debating one of the most controversial Bills of the Session, has found time to debate the problems of the Bamangwato tribe.
It cannot pass without notice that when we are engaged in very bitter political disputes about domestic matters, we should find time to debate this question. It is also significant that this British Parliament, which is responsible for many millions of Africans in Africa, should regard an issue affecting the Africans as being an issue of definite public importance. Tonight, in Serowe, the feeling must be not dissimilar from the feeling that there was in December, 1936, at the abdication of King Edward VIII, and it is appropriate that we should discuss it.
The statement made in the House this afternoon by the hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of his noble Friend was the final chapter of a very long story, extending back two and a half years. If one looks at that story from the time when Tshekedi Khama was the Regent of the Bamangwato tribe, through to the time when Seretse Khama returned from England to become Chief, one can see a great variety of reasons for excluding either Seretse or Tshekedi.
In the first place, we were told that the presence of Seretse Khama in the


tribe would create trouble, that the tribe was very likely to suffer from disputes about the dynasty, and that it would be better if there was a period of rest and quiet. So, after an official inquiry, both Seretse and Tshekedi were excluded from the Reserve.
At that time, the last Government made a very bold move in trying to establish, in what was primarily a tribal community, a system of native councils. Those councils were to be operated under direct rule. Then, last year, there was pressure to return Tshekedi to the Reserve, and the present Government decided not very long ago that he should be allowed back as a private person.
Now, we are faced with the position that even the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is prepared to admit that Seretse Khama is very popular in the Bamangwato tribe and that he is not being excluded on the grounds that he is unpopular. He is being excluded for some other reasons, for reasons of high policy.
We know from the evidence of the observers who came back from Bechuanaland last year that the question of Tshekedi had to be considered in the same terms as the question of Seretse, and in the last reference to it in Mr. Lipson's report, speaking about the question of Tshekedi, these words appear:
The chief fear of very many of those who were opposed to Tshekedi's return would probably be removed had Seretse also been allowed to return.
I am not in dispute with the hon. and learned Gentleman or with the Government on this point, because in the statement this afternoon we are told that even though Seretse is popular, he is not allowed to go back.
Now, we are told that the tribe needs a chief. We are told that it is impossible to leave the position as it is at present and that there must be someone to guide the destinies of the Bamangwato. But Seretse himself has been excluded. One of the first questions I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman is, Why the hurry? What is the reason for making this statement at this time? Seretse Khama himself was only summoned four days ago to be told this decision. Last Sunday, he knew nothing whatsoever about the Government's intention. Four

days have elapsed from the first interview with Seretse Khama on this matter before the final banishment takes place.
Why the hurry? We have just had a change of Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations. Lord Ismay, who occupied the post, must have turned his attention to the question of the Bamangwato. Now, Lord Ismay has left that post to go to defend the liberties of the free world. Is he responsible for this policy, or is the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Lord Salisbury?
In the debate on Tshekedi Khama last summer in another place, there was a reference by the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to the whole question of the treatment of individuals, and among his remarks he had this to say:
In the past, an individual, unless he had committed an offence, was not only secure against the deprivation of his civil rights and liberties, but he was entitled to the protection of the law. Now it seems, in Bechuanaland at any rate, that that is no longer true. If he is inconvenient to the powers that be, if he is unpopular, as is alleged in this case, or equally, if he is too popular in another case, he can be proceeded against by administrative order, though he may have done nothing wrong at all … That is a doctrine"—
said the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—
we are very familiar with in countries east of the Iron Curtain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th June, 1951; Vol. 172, c. 390–1.]
Why the hurry? It is known that a delegation from Bechuanaland was to visit this country next week and that that delegation was to make representations to the hon. and learned Gentleman's noble Friend about the future of Seretse Khama. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself has admitted that passports were already issued. But not only was it announced publicly that this delegation would not be received by the Secretary of State; this decision was announced so as to forestall their arrival. We are entitled in the House to answers to these questions.
What I am concerned with for the moment is the statement made in the House this afternoon by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was a very clever statement in that it suggested throughout that the present Government were simply following the lead given by their predecessors and by the previous Secretary


of State. If one examines it carefully, however, one can see that there has been a very considerable change of policy with regard to Seretse Khama.
First, the previous Secretary of State made it quite clear at the start that the tribe did not really want Seretse Khama. There is no doubt that at the time Seretse went back to become chief of the tribe, there was some confusion there in that he had married without their consent. That was true; that was one of the reasons given by the last Government for their policy. But now, the situation is totally different. Now, the Bamangwato tribe have rallied to their Chief and to his wife and to their child. That reason, therefore, holds good no longer.
Second, we are told that the present Government are following the policy of their predecessors. What about the question of the native councils? The previous Government believed that there was a possibility of introducing the beginnings, at any rate, of self-government in the Bamangwato. Now, however, we are told by the present Government that all that is to go and that there is to be a reversion to the arrangement by which there was a chief.
I see some sense in the policy of establishing native councils. Seretse himself made a statement at one stage in which he said that he would be quite prepared to renounce the chieftainship if he could serve his tribe in a new and more democratic set-up. It is along those lines that one might have expected some sort of an answer to be found. But contrary to that, the present Government have completely cut across the policy that was designed and organised by the previous Government.
Finally, one may reasonably ask why Jamaica was chosen as the place in which Seretse Khama's services might be of some use. We were told in the statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon that Seretse at one time demonstrated his total incapacity for any office. We were told in the White Paper of March, 1950, that he demonstrated that "he was unmindful … of his public duty," and now, we are told that the Government hope that he will have a successful career in Jamaica.
Why is he not going back to serve the people of Africa in Africa? The

hon. and learned Gentleman knows the reason very well. He knows that if Seretse Khama set foot in Africa again, he would be hailed by the Africans as a national hero; and that is why there was the suggestion that he should be transferred to some other part of the world.
The truth is that all these debates we have had on the future of the Bamangwato tribe have had an air of unreality about them. We have been told we were discussing the question of mixed marriages; we have been told we were discussing the question of the arrangement of the tribe and its internal affairs and there is, of course, truth in all that. But at the same time, behind the whole thing lies the crisis in the Union of South Africa. Any consideration whatsoever of this matter which does not allude to South Africa is an unreal consideration and I very much hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to this when he speaks.
First, we have the position of the High Commissioner in South Africa, a totally impossible position. He is responsible as the Supreme Commander for the Protectorates—that is part of his job—and he is at the same time our Ambassador to the present South African Government. It is an impossible position to put any man in and that is one reason why the influences of South Africa and South African politics are so strongly felt in the Bamangwato Reserve.
We know that the present South African Government feel very strongly about the question of the future of Protectorates and about mixed marriages. Dr. Malan, the Prime Minister, has made it clear time and time again that it is his intention, if possible, to bring the Protectorates back or bring them into the Union of South Africa, and after Seretse Khama married Ruth—after, mark you—it was made an offence in South Africa for a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa. Those two issues, which are burning issues in South Africa, are bound to influence the position of the Government.
It is not as if we had any particular fetish ourselves about mixed marriages. To the best of my knowledge, it is no offence and is not looked down upon particularly in any other part of the Commonwealth for there to be a mixed


marriage. Certainly one of the big problems which South Africans face in South Africa is that there is a large section of the population which is the result of mixed marriages, although the marriages were not quite so evident in these cases as the fact that they were mixed.
That is the problem which faces them in Africa, and although I can see that the Government might make a case and say that in the delicate situation in which we find ourselves we have to consider South African opinion, in my view we have to look at the wider picture. Unless we look at the problem of the Bamangwato tribe and of Seretse Khama against the background of the whole of Africa and in the wider picture of the world as a whole, we are not going to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this problem. Africa is facing this. It is either going the way of Apartheid, which we must remember Malan is trying to enforce in South Africa, or it is going the way which the last Government pointed, with I think the agreement of all sides of the House, that Africa should go towards native co-operation.
What effect is the decision announced today going to have on Prime Minister Nkruma in the Gold Coast? What is he going to think about it and of the intentions of a Government which bring it into effect? What effect will it have in Nigeria, in Tanganyika and as far north as the Sudan? What effect will it have on the African delegates coming to London next month to discuss the question of Central African federation? All these things to be considered by the Government if they are to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this problem. I say to the Government quite frankly that they are playing the Russians' game; this is one of the ways in which we can convert people to a completely cynical view of the intentions of the Western world.
The truth is that the Tory Party have never understood the meaning of the new Commonwealth. It was Tory policy which lost us the American Colonies in 1776. It was Tory policy which could very easily have lost us India in the period after the war. We are seeing now Tory policy applied in this instance. The fact is that in Seretse and Ruth is the focus of the whole problem of Africa in two people. It is not an exaggeration to say

that a decision of this kind is going to affect far more things than whether the Bamangwato tribe themselves enjoy a satisfactory and effective development of their own life.
I say that this decision was unjust and unwise, and if it is the precedent for what we can expect from the present Government in their policy abroad, then the sooner they get out the better. If tonight this Government were to resign, it would be as welcome in Africa as it would be in this country.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to second the Motion.
I should first like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on his speech in opening this debate. By that speech he has been himself a very worthy son of his father. Lord Stansgate, in another place, is still standing for the ideals of liberty of which he was such a great champion in this House, and those of us who recall those days will remember him first in the Liberal Party, standing for the very essence of Liberalism, which is a belief in liberty, and, secondly, when we welcomed him into the ranks of the Labour Party, taking that mantle upon his shoulders. As one of the older Members of this House, I very sincerely congratulate his son upon that speech and say that in that speech he expressed all the best—and that is very great—in the record of his father.
In seconding this Motion, I do not think any hon. Member of the Government will complain that I adopted a different attitude when the Labour Party formed the Government from that which I am now adopting in opposition. I think I was one of the first hon. Members in this House to seek to move the Adjournment of the House when Seretse Khama was first excluded from his country, and I say frankly to the House that I think a very grave mistake was made by the Labour Government when it took that action. But that is no excuse for the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking for the office of Commonwealth Relations, now to defend his action upon the White Paper which was then introduced because, as many of us expected, every argument in that White Paper has been repudiated by the events which have followed.
What was the argument in that White Paper? It was that Seretse Khama, because he had done perhaps the most fundamental thing of all human life in marrying the woman he loved, even though that woman was a white person, would be rejected by his tribe and that there would be disunity in it. Exactly the opposite happened. I regard that as an extraordinary advance for the principle of the equality of human relationships.
I know that there has been a colour bar on the side of the Indians and Africans, as well as on the side of the Britishers, but that the Bamangwato tribe should not only have endorsed Seretse as their chief but should have welcomed his wife, indeed should have come to admire the courage of his wife in those circumstances, and should have again and again endorsed their claim that he should be their Chief, is one of the greatest features of human advance and racial equality that there has been in this century.
If this House of Commans had had broad ideas about human equality and was thinking in the terms of a future human family in which racial differences would be abolished, the Government would have welcomed this declaration of the Bamangwato tribe and made it an occasion to allow Seretse and Ruth Khama to return to Bechuanaland, rather than have adopted the attitude which has been adopted by the Government on this occasion.
I wish to speak very frankly. Even when the Labour Government issued its White Paper, none of us believed that the excuses made in that White Paper were the real reason for the exclusion of Seretse. We all knew that the real reason was the attitude of the South African Government. What was true then is equally true today.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: More so.

Mr. Brockway: I agree it is more so, because the Government have had the stupidity to choose for the occasion of this announcement a time when the issue of the colour bar is at its height in the South African Union.
From the Labour benches in this House it was argued that the more liberal elements in South Africa did not want Seretse to return, because if he did it would play into the hands of Dr. Malan.

The opposite is true today. By the Government of Great Britain endorsing in this disgraceful way the principle of the colour bar, it is assisting the South African Government at the very moment of the struggle against the Liberals in South Africa upon this issue of the colour bar.
I wish to say more than that. I would say to the Government, with some knowledge of the feeling in Africa, what I said to the Colonial Secretary the other day regarding the Central African federation, where the proposal is that the federation should be imposed despite the opposition of the African people; that by that he was endangering the co-operation of the African people. I say that the action of the Government today over Seretse Khama will alienate the whole African population in the British Colonies against this Government and against this country.
When Seretse Khama was excluded from Africa, I was visiting the Sudan and Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda. Everywhere I went the people regarded the personal issue of Seretse Khama as embodying the rights and liberties of the African population as a whole. I say to the Government that its effect on the social conditions in this country has been serious. But historically the policy of the Colonial Office since the change of Government and the policy of the office of Commonwealth Relations will in the long run be a greater disaster to this country even than the social distress which it is causing; because it has meant the alienation of all hope of good will between African races and this country.
I would refer to the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his statement today, that there has been a vacuum since Seretse Khama was deposed, and that that can be filled only by some other African becoming Chief of the Bamangwato. I recognise that a vacuum has been created. But it has been created by the exclusion of Seretse Khama from Bechuanaland. I have had many conversations with him and I have conveyed the gist of those conversations to the Government. In them I indicated that he was quite prepared to play his part in a new democratic conception of the government of Bechuanaland.
Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he must be banned forever as Chief. I say to him that will inevitably mean that the people of


Bechuanaland will first regard as an alien and an imposter any other Chief which this Parliament imposes on them, and secondly will make it much more difficult to establish the democratic constitution in Bechuanaland.
Then there is this proposal to send him to Jamaica. It is a degrading thing that a British Government, when it has done this wrong, should seek to buy off the victim, first by a promise of money, and second by sending him to an island in the distant Atlantic. It makes me ashamed of the sense of human values of this House and the rights and liberty of the individual.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when someone is deported from Russia or a satellite country of Russia, suddenly become Liberal and defend the rights of the individual. But when it is the case of an African in a British Protectorate, suddenly it becomes all right. Liberties and human values are the same in Africa or in Europe or all over the world. I hope the House will indicate by its attitude tonight that though this Government may do this shameful and disgraceful thing, the people of Britain do not endorse it and will show at the earliest opportunity—not only for the sake of our people here but for the sake of the people of Africa—that they will rid this country of a Government which is denying the fundamental liberties and freedoms.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Every hon. Member of this House will agree with the opening sentences in the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol. South-East (Mr. Benn), when he said that it was a great thing that in the midst of a very important debate on another aspect of our affairs we should stop to discuss and argue about the rights and wrongs of a case affecting one person. That has always been one of the shining traditions of this House, and I am sure everyone will agree that our prayer will be that it may long continue to be so.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, I recalled very forcibly the exclamation of Shylock:
A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel! O wise young judge …
I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) that this evening we are here as judges of a very important

issue. Therefore, we should approach the matter in a sensible, straightforward and judicial fashion.

Mr. Sorensen: What is the point of the quotation?

Mr. Craddock: I am sorry that the hon. Member does not see the point. I will not delay the House by trying to educate him now.
I turn to one or two of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. The first question he asked was, "Why the hurry?" I should have thought that, if he knew anything at all about Africa, if he had lived there, and if he knew the Africans, he would have found the answer immediately in the White Paper to which he referred—namely, the report of the Commission sent out to investigate the position.
I draw his attention to page 14 of the report of Mr. Bullock and Professor Macmillan, where it says:
Perhaps our overriding impression is this, that the greatest need of the people of the Bamangwato Reserve is a period of peace to go about their everyday affairs freed from the distraction of continuing disturbances resulting from consideration of the affairs of the members of the chiefly house.
I refer to the last sentence of Mr. Lipson's report, in which he said:
Meanwhile, conditions in the tribe are deteriorating owing to lack of strong leadership.
I respectfully suggest that that is the real importance of the decision which was of necessity given by the Government at this juncture.

Mr. Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. He will recall that one of the points I made was that this delegation which represents the tribal leaders was due to arrive in this country tomorrow week, and although the need for speed is strong, it must not be forgotten that delay, at least until that stage, might very well have eased any decision that had to be taken.

Mr. Craddock: I appreciate the point the hon. Member has made, but I must say that I still adhere to the view that this matter is so urgent, and that the conditions there have deteriorated so rapidly that, if anything, my right hon. Friend should have made this decision before now.
The next point the hon. Gentleman raised was why should Seretse be sent to Jamaica? Of course, Seretse is not being sent to Jamaica. It has been suggested that he can do valuable work there. Again, if the hon. Gentleman knows the conditions both in Africa and in Jamaica, he will agree that Seretse, with his African background, can do a very useful job in Jamaica. I should have thought that if he was to go anywhere, Jamaica would indeed have been a very proper place for him to go.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has twice suggested that I know nothing about Africa. Perhaps I may just tell him that I spent over a year there and this included visits to Bechuanaland. I never suggested that Seretse was being sent to Jamaica. I simply asked why was Jamaica picked as the place for which an offer was made. My point is that he may do something in the Bamangwato Reserve itself. If he cannot do it there, there are plenty of other places in Africa which could take advantage of his talents.

Mr. Craddock: If I misquoted the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry. It was the hon. Member for Eton and Slough who asked why Seretse was being sent to Jamaica, because I took down the actual words.

Mr. Brockway: I accept that, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that when a man is excluded from his own country—[Interruption.] If I may say so to the Government Front Bench, it is exactly that attitude which causes feeling on this matter. It is an attitude which expresses not only class superiority but racial superiority, and that is the thing which is ruining the world today.

Mr. Craddock: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked why Seretse was being sent to Jamaica. I am trying to follow the advice which I respectfully gave to the House; namely, that we should try to avoid emotion and approach this problem from a judicial point of view. But on every occasion when I have listened to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, not only in this House but outside, I have found it difficult to avoid emotion. He gives me the impression that everything he says and his whole line of approach is that everything that the British people in this country

and in this House do is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. That is my impression and I am entitled to form my own impression. Everything we do is wrong. It used to be the same before 1939. Everything the British Government do is wrong. Everything that every other Government does—including the attitude of the people in the Empire—is all right. I firmly object to that attitude.
I put it on record once and for all that having had the privilege, like others, of seeing and observing at close quarters the great work done in most parts of the British Empire over a long period, I believe that this country and our people have made a greater contribution to the scheme of things in this world than any other nation. I will not retract from that.

Mr. Brockway: I content myself by refuting the hon. Member's interpretation altogether.

Mr. Craddock: The next question raised by the two hon. Gentlemen was that of mixed marriages. That has nothing whatever to do with the case of Seretse Khama. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It has nothing whatever to do with it. Then both hon. Gentlemen asked, "What is the effect of this on the Africans?" They asked what it would mean. They tried to paint a rather lurid picture. I believe that this rightful action of the British Government will have a very good effect on the Africans throughout the whole of the Continent.
Now that I know the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East has had actual experience in Africa, I think he will agree that one of the most important considerations to every African in every part of that great Continent is the tribe and the tribal life. At the moment in the Bamangwato Reserve the whole of the tribal life is disintegrating. This action will do more than anything else to restore the tribal pride of the Bamangwato.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake if he supposes that in this matter I did not recognise the importance of tribal life, the importance of the tribal dynasty and indeed the importance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did in trying to superimpose some measure of representative native


council. But if the hon. Member says that the Africans do not know what is good for them—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member must not make a second speech.

Mr. Craddock: I think that the steps which have been taken will have nothing but a good effect, once more cementing together the whole of the Bamangwato tribe.

Mr. Sorensen: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that.

Mr. Craddock: Yes, I do strongly.

Mr. T. Driberg: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Craddock: No. I am sorry. I have given way a good deal already.
There is a further point I want to make before I get on to the general theme. It is a matter of great regret to me—and I hope that it will not occur again—that South Africa should be dragged into this debate. It will do infinite harm. South Africa has nothing whatever to do with this question of Seretse.
We have had many important debates in the previous Parliament on the question of Tshekedi Khama. Tonight, I suggest that the issue is a very narrow one, namely, the question of Seretse Khama, and, therefore, it is right and proper that we should dismiss altogether any considerations concerning Tshekedi Khama from this affair and concentrate upon the one problem of Seretse.
In order that we may have a proper appreciation of the state of affairs and judge properly the action of my hon. and learned Friend and of his noble Friend in another place, it is desirable that we should go back and consider briefly the background of this whole question. Hon. Members know as well as I do that it really started with the intimation by Seretse to his uncle Tshekedi that he, Seretse, was going to marry an English girl.
Not unnaturally, as we all appreciate, this must have come as a shock to Tshekedi Khama and to the members of the Bamangwato tribe; and, rightly, Tshekedi, in the position in which he was then, did the proper thing in suggesting

that Seretse should postpone his marriage to the English lady and go back to the tribe for consultation. The reply that Tshekedi received from Seretse to that proposition was that Seretse was already married.
Following on that, and I am jumping the interval in order to save time, the next really important thing that happened was that a kgotla was held—the first one, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember—to consider whether, in these circumstances, Seretse was still entitled to remain the Chief-Designate. I think I am right in that, and I see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. In my view, what happened at the first kgotla—again the right hon. Gentleman agrees—was that Seretse was condemned by the whole tribe.
That, I believe, is where the great mistake was made in the whole of this question. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick, when he occupied a position in the Government, had at that juncture said that this was a question for the tribe to decide—as, indeed it is—and, if they had decided against Seretse, he would accept that decision right away, we should not have had any more of the trouble that we have had during the past two years.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It happened before I was Secretary of State.

Mr. Craddock: It was on one of my first days in the House when I heard the right hon. Gentleman make the announcement.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The kgotla happened before that.

Mr. Craddock: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not affect the issue. It was an action of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished representative.

Mr. Gordon Walker: A junior Minister.

Mr. Craddock: Therefore, the whole trouble arose from that particular point, and I respectfully suggest, and with conviction, that the real issue here has been brought about by the wrong action of the then Government, and that is where all this trouble springs from. It is


another legacy left by the Socialist Government to the present Government, and I believe that it was right and proper that, at the earliest possible moment, this Government should tackle and resolve the problem.
In supporting, as I do, the action that has now been taken, there are certain grounds for that attitude. Let us consider three points. What has been the effect of the decision of five years' banishment on Seretse himself? Every hon. Member in this House who knows Seretse, has kept in touch with his position and has been following the situation very carefully, will agree that Seretse is almost a nervous wreck today, and one can well imagine it. [Interruption.] I do not agree that that is silly. I have been in touch with all these matters concerning him; just as much as the hon. Member himself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to me, it would be much simpler.

Mr. Craddock: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The effect of this banishment on Seretse himself has been very serious indeed, and I do not believe that today he would be capable of taking over his position as Chief, even if he were called upon to do so. If that is the case now, what will be the effect of another three years of this uncertainty? It is quite unfair to Seretse himself that he should be kept in suspense for nearly another three years.
Then, again, I have already commented on the question of the effect on the tribe. We have the observations of the Commissioners who went out there, and who reported that the whole position was rapidly deteriorating. Finally, and equally important, there is the effect on Her Majesty's Government. How is it possible for a Government to do all they want to do to bring about progress in this area if we have this very unsettled state? Hon. Members who know Africa will agree how very important it is, and how such things as these disturbances have a very adverse effect on every African in the territory.
I submit that it was not only right and proper, but that it was the bounden duty of H.M. Government to resolve this

unhappy position at the earliest possible moment, and I believe that they have taken the only step which they could take to do so. I admit, and everyone will agree, that it is unfortunate on Seretse, but I disagree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough when he says that Seretse is an ordinary individual.
Seretse is not an ordinary person. He is a person of royal blood, and he has special obligations to fulfil. We well know that a person in that very special position in any part of the world has very great obligations towards the people over whom he is seeking to rule, and Seretse has been shown, in the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend today, that he has failed to consult with his people when he contemplated choosing a consort. His failure to do so, as my hon. and learned Friend's statement today says,
betokened lack of responsibility in a potential ruler, and by his precipitate marriage he was unmindful of the interests of his tribe and of his public duty.
I come back to the central question. This is not a question of mixed marriages at all. If Seretse or any other African came to me and said, "I propose to marry an English girl; what do you think about it?" I would say to him, as I have done in the past in similar cases, and as I should do again in the future, "That is a matter for you, but if you are asking my opinion, for what it is worth, I think it would be very unwise of you to do so."
Let us face up to it. It is not liked by a very large number of Europeans, and, equally important, it is not liked or looked upon with favour by the Africans themselves. That, I submit, is where the real point comes in—that Seretse made a great mistake in not considering the obligations which he would be called upon to undertake in due course, and, therefore, cannot now expect any great consideration from his people, or, indeed, from this House, in the unhappy situation in which he finds himself.
I am afraid that I must simply conclude by saying that I do feel most strongly that this difficult situation is an unhappy and unfortunate legacy left by the mistakes of the previous Administration, and that I believe that it was the duty of


H.M. Government to act quickly. In my view, they have acted rightly, not only from the point of view of justice and from every other consideration, but, I believe, in a way that will react to the best interests of the Bamangwato tribe themselves.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Like many of my hon. Friends, I have taken a considerable interest in this issue from the start, and I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) that a tribal kgotla voted against Seretse Khama at the first tribal meeting when this trouble arose. Since then, however, the tribe have changed their mind and, as far as I know, tribes, like a Parliament and like anybody else, have the right to change their mind. Eventually, the tribe were in favour of accepting Seretse Khama and his white wife.
About a month ago, some of my hon. Friends and myself put down a Motion, for which time has not yet been found, suggesting that Tshekedi Khama, the uncle of Seretse Khama, should be allowed to return to his native land and that Seretse Khama should be allowed to assume the chieftainship of the tribe. That suggestion was turned down by the Colonial Secretary, who said that Tshekedi Khama would be allowed to return under certain terms and that Seretse Khama would not be allowed to return. I asked him a supplementary question on the point—whether that would introduce peace and harmony into the tribal territory; and his answer was that the Government expected that it would. What has happened? It has introduced discord and nothing but discord. Indeed, it was bound to introduce discord. That was why my hon. Friends and I put down the Motion which has not yet been discussed.
I am not concerned with the personality of Seretse Khama. I am concerned with the question of principle. Seretse Khama, in my opinion, did gievous wrong under the laws and customs of his tribe by marrying against his tribal customs and by marrying so precipitously without giving the tribe time to think the matter over. Therefore, I am not concerned with him. But I want to ask these questions—and I hope we shall have answers to them, because much depends on them. Has

any pressure been brought to bear upon Seretse Khama to abdicate—for that is what it amounts to—and to agree to the terms which the Government have offered? Was any pressure brought to bear on him?

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): No, Sir.

Mr. Reid: The next question is: has he voluntarily and freely agreed to the terms now proposed by the Government?

Mr. Foster: He has refused them.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Reid: I am glad to have been given that answer, which is at least something definite. It is important. We are considering Seretse Khama's future, and he has refused to accept what the Government have offered. That is a genuine answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman and now we know where we stand.

Mr. Foster: May I add, in order to help the hon. Gentleman, that the Jamaican offer remains open in spite of his refusal and that we hope he will accept it, but that is up to him.

Mr. Reid: The chief point is that he refuses the solution of the problem offered to him by the Government. That raises a very important point indeed. The first point is, therefore, that the chief person concerned objects to the proposed arrangement.
The next question I ask is, what about the tribe? It is not a tribe throughout the whole of Bechuanaland, which is a huge territory as big as half Europe. This involves the chieftainship of a very small tribe in Bechuanaland. The question is, what do the tribe want? After all, these tribal laws are not as definite and as rigid as our laws, but everyone agrees that the question of the chieftainship should rest with the tribe. The question is, were the tribe consulted before this offer was made by the Government, and have the tribe indicated in any way that they do not want Seretse Khama back?

Mr. Foster: If I may intervene—and I am using this method in order to assist the hon. Gentleman, for these points have been raised suddenly—the indications are that the majority of the tribe want the


return of Seretse. I think it is right that I should say so. Obviously, I have qualifications to add to that in the sense of an explanation of why, as in the case of the White Paper, the decision of the kgotla is, in our view, not paramount.

Mr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for replying so candidly, and that makes the position even more clear. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has means of information which are not available to the ordinary hon. Member, Seretse Khama himself and his tribe object to the proposals put forward by the Government.

Mr. Foster: I do not think the tribe know of the proposals. All I can say is that in the kgotla, as last indicated, the majority of the tribe wanted the return of Seretse Khama. That is the latest information about the kgotla. They do not know about this proposal, and when I say "the majority," there are views about how big the majority is and how far the situation remains like that.

Mr. Reid: I am sorry if I over-stated the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. What he says is perfectly true. As far as we know, the tribe want Seretse Khama back, although they are ignorant of the offer made by the Government. I suggest that the offer which the Government have now made will not bring the tribe round to their point of view. Of course, the tribe have not been consulted about this offer. I do not know why, then, the Government have decided to exile Seretse Khama from his country. Is it because they do not consider that he would be a competent Chief? If that is the reason, and assuming for the sake of argument that Seretse Khama would not prove an efficient administrator or an efficient Chief of the tribe, I suggest that it would be best to allow him to be tried in that position and to let his own people deal with him. If he proved to be a failure, then as far as I know the tribal laws, they could remove him.
The Government's objectives are no doubt perfectly good. They want to preserve unity and peace and harmony in the tribe, but I ask them: is this the way to do it, by deposing the lawful Chief of the tribe—for that is what it amounts to—instead of letting the lawful chief take his chance so as to see what he can do and

then leaving it to the tribe, if necessary, to depose him?
In India, this sort of case arose several times and the general rule was to allow the Princely chief to carry on. We had the paramount power and we could not allow Princes to mis-govern their territories very badly, because we were indirectly responsible. We therefore allowed the Maharajas and the Rajas to carry on until it was proved conclusively, to their subjects, that they were not fit to rule. Several of these Maharajas and Rajas were deposed by the paramount power, and in my experience in India I did not know a case where his subjects objected. First, however, we gave a chance to the lawful successor to the throne, and then his own people condemned him and we removed him.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might clear up this point when he replies: why had we to step in like this and take the odium of this whole affair? Why should we create a lot of ill feeling amongst the Africans, where the situation will probably be mis-represented against the British? Why not allow the tribe themselves to deal with him? There might be some disorder, or there might not, if Seretse Khama went back as Chief, but why not risk that instead of taking the bigger risk of bringing the Government of Britain into odium and creating a lot of feeling in the African territories? I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer that important question when he replies.
The next thing which troubles me is this—and my hon. Friends have already referred to it: was this an opportune moment at which to make this new offer to Seretse Khama? Again, the Government have sources of information which I have not, but I confess that it seems to me to have been a very inopportune moment to bring forward such an offer. I am, however, only seeking information; I never reach decisions without knowing the facts as far as I can get them. It appears to me and to many of my hon. Friends to have been a very inopportune moment, and, quite frankly, the suspicion on these benches is that this trouble has been caused by South African interests. Whether that is so, I do not know, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will clear the point up in his reply.
Again, it has been said by some of my hon. Friends that a bribe, more or less,


was offered to Seretse Khama by offering him a job in Jamaica. I do not know whether that is true, but what post was offered to him? What is the nature of the post in which he can "perform useful service," and what are the terms? Is he to be paid by the Jamaican Government or not? We should like to know these things. Meantime, until these questions are answered, I do not think we can come to a realistic decision on this point; and I beg whoever is to reply to the debate for the Government to be frank and candid with the House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: We have now reached another chapter in this very unfortunate story. I would say at once, in regard to a remark that was made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), that he regretted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) introduced emotion, that to me any question relating to the liberty of any man is bound to raise, in all of us, the deepest emotions.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? I am very much obliged to him. I agree that that is undoubtedly so. I could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman more. However, I respectfully suggest to him—and, as a member of the same profession, doubtless he will agree with me—that it is the duty of this House, as the judge, not to approach this thing in an emotional way, for the task of the House tonight is a judicial one.

Mr. Davies: Well, one may approach all manner of matters in a judicial way, but it is difficult to put on one side one's deep feelings when one is considering the liberty or the position or the rights of a fellow subject. One of the most cruel punishments that can be inflicted upon any man is the punishment of banishment from amongst his own people and from his own country—and especially if that man has done nothing that, so far as one can see, entitles anyone to condemn him even for the smallest offence.
I only wish that some of the speeches to which we have listened tonight had been delivered on other occasions when this matter has been raised in this House. I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough in

congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who, unfortunately, is not in at the moment, for his robust liberalism. I wish that that robust liberalism had found expression when we were asking that Tshekedi should be returned to his own people, for he had done nothing whatsoever except to look after his people for more than 20 years—and yet, nevertheless, was banished from them for trying again to safeguard their future. But the robust voice of liberalism found it best to be silent on that occasion. Perhaps it is just as well that those of us who still believe in it remain in the Liberal Party, and are not to be tempted by the profits of office in any party.
Reference has been made to the question of mixed marriages. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Spelthorne said that that had nothing to do with the present decision, whereupon there were protests from this side of the House. This has everything to do with the question of mixed marriages, and has had right from the very outset. It was the Government of the day in their White Paper who said that mixed marriages had got nothing to do with it. It is in the White Paper, paragraph 16:
His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the very strong feelings that are aroused on the subject of the merits or demerits of mixed marriages, but that is not the issue which is here raised.

Mr. Sorensen: It is not quite the same point.

Mr. Davies: I really do not see wherein lies the difference. I think that it is a distinction without a difference. At any rate, it is one of the most hypocritical statements that was ever made in any White Paper. The question of whom any young man or young woman should marry is a question for those two and for nobody else, and it is not right that anyone should interfere with them. It is a question of their lives and their choice, and no one has any right to interfere with that right or that choice.
But what had happened here? Reference has been made to the fact that now there is a general call amongst the Bamangwato tribe for the return of Seretse, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has directed particular attention to that now, and says that that is the position, and


that he has put down a Motion directing the attention of the House to that. But that call was made after his marriage.
There were three kgotlas. They are referred to in the White Paper that was issued by the then Government. In the first one they were against Seretse. In the second one there were more people voting for Seretse. I am not sure that they were not in the majority. In the third one, in June, 1949, when he returned to the Reserve, as is pointed out in paragraph 7:
At a third meeting of the tribe in that month there was a decisive majority in favour of Seretse as Chief with his European wife.
Nevertheless, the Government of the day banished him—and banished him for a period of years unnamed. It is made quite clear in paragraph 15. They had asked him to give up his rights voluntarily. Paragraph 15 says:
Seretse was unable to accept that view, and His Majesty's Government had, therefore, to make their own decision which was announced in Parliament on the 8th March. It was to the effect that the High Commissioner had been instructed to withhold his recognition of Seretse as Chief for a period of years, sufficiently long for the disappearance of the present tendencies to disruption which threaten the unity and the well-being of the tribe.
Then comes this sentence:
The period required would certainly not be less than five years, and at the end of that time"—
whatever that might be—
the situation would be reviewed.
It was then that the appalling decision was arrived at. That has been the cause of all the trouble.
Hon. Gentlemen now are saying that the paramount thing is the future of the tribe. I do agree, but they flouted the future of the tribe in 1950. I agree that Africans do not like these mixed marriages, but his own people, having met three times, said about the future of the tribe in June, 1949, "This man has married a white woman. Nevertheless, we should like him back, and we should like his white wife with him."
What did the then Government do? They appointed a commission of inquiry, and the inquiry was held, and it reported, in paragraph 11:
His Majesty's Government must, however, state categorically that the Judicial Enquiry

unanimously advised against the recognition of Seretse. It expressed its belief that in these circumstances Seretse's absence from the Bechuanaland Protectorate was essential to the peace and good order of the Bamangwato Reserve, and that a period of direct rule would be in the best interests of the Bamangwato.
Now, the date of the inquiry precedes the decision to banish him, and to banish him for an unstated number of years. That was a crime against liberty committed by the then Government. I do not remember a voice, except that of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and some of my colleagues, being raised in protest.

Mr. Sorensen: There were plenty more.

Mr. Davies: How many voted when it came to Tshekedi?

Mr. Sorensen: That is not the point.

Mr. Davies: I remember that, unfortunately, I was not present when the Consolidated Fund Bill was debated, and it was one of my colleagues who raised this matter for a short while.

Mrs. Eirene White: No; the right hon. and learned Gentleman is at fault.

Mr. Davies: Am I?

Mrs. White: I believe he really is mistaken there. The issue of Seretse was raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill by Members of the then Government party, and the issue of Tshekedi was raised on a Supply Day at the discretion of the Opposition at that time.

Mr. Davies: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I said I was not present, but I thought that I had left it to my hon. Friend to raise it.

Mr. J. Foster: What happened was that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) raised it; the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleague the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) raised it, and the then hon. Member for Oxford, now Lord Hailsham, also mentioned it.

Mr. Davies: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) whom I had in mind. Unfortunately, I could not be present, and I know that it was raised at a very late hour. At any rate I was right about this. When I


raised the much more straightforward case of Tshekedi, who was not Chief, who resigned from his position as Chief, I had to seek the assistance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Government side of the House to get it even debated. When we did get it debated and divided the House, although there were many voices sympathetic with Tshekedi, hon. Members voted in the other Lobby in the main.
Now let me turn to another matter. There is one thing that is absolutely clear in my mind, and that is that no one has the right to interfere with these people except their protectors. No one from outside has any right to dictate; and certainly not somebody taking and upholding the views of the Prime Minister of South Africa, Dr. Malan. What he is doing within his own territory is bad enough, but at any rate he has no right to threaten anybody outside that territory. I am very glad to hear the protests that have been made about that today, and I hope that it is absolutely clear that that has nothing to do with what has happened since with regard to this.

Mr. Foster: It is absolutely clear.

Mr. Davies: Even indirectly?

Mr. Foster: Even indirectly.

Mr. Davies: Very well. That is something at any rate. There is a reference to it, though, in paragraph 17 of the White Paper:
His Majesty's Government were of course aware that a strong body of European opinion in southern Africa would be opposed to recognition; but, as stated in the House of Commons on the 8th March, no representations on this matter have been received from the Government of the Union of South Africa or Southern Rhodesia.
There is a categorical statement, but I cannot help reading that in conjunction with paragraph 10, which refers to the report of those who made the statement. They issued a report and delivered it to the Government of the day.
The Government then said they had considered whether the report should be published, and added:
As the report and the accompanying evidence form only a part of the matters considered by His Majesty's Government they would present an incomplete and unbalanced picture.

Even unbalanced and incomplete, at any rate let us have a look at it. We might be able to fill up the lacuna and add the bits for ourselves. But we were denied that. The White Paper goes on:
Moreover certain arguments are advanced and views expressed in the report which are not accepted by His Majesty's Government, and with which they could not associate themselves. The danger that such parts of the report would be quoted without its being made clear that they had not the approval of the Government is so great that His Majesty's Government have decided that the report cannot be published.
I asked in previous Parliaments what those arguments were, and I ask it again now. Would it not be in the interests of everybody if, even now, that report were published? Is it not obvious that those arguments were: "If Seretse is allowed to be accompanied by his wife, Miss Ruth Williams, a white woman, back amongst his tribe, there will be protests from South Africa and trouble will be caused by that." Was that the argument contained in the report? Is that the reason this report was then suppressed?
If that is so, it is hypocrisy now to say that Malan is not again interfering. He interfered at the time when this wrong was done in the initial stages. We should not be debating this now if this action had not been taken and Seretse and Tshekedi both banished. That is the position. What is to happen? Fortunately the new Government have seen fit to allow Tshekedi to go back home. I understand that efforts are being made for him to go back there quietly, and we all hope that he will.
Now comes the question: What is to be done with Seretse? Can he go back as Chief? It will be very difficult. Really he is treated by his own people, and rightly, as more than King: he is father, guide and leader, like the great Khama, his grandfather, before him, and like his uncle Tshekedi before him.
What has happened with regard to that young man? He was sent to schools, sent to colleges in South Africa, and sent to Oxford. Then, when he is about to take over and take a wife with him, with the approval of the whole of the tribe, along comes the Government here in Britain and says: "No. Go away. You are not fit to be Chief. Go away for a number of years. We can-


not tell you how long, but certainly not less than five." What is likely to be the influence of a man like that when he is brought back at the end of five years? The damage has been done. It was done then; that is the point.
I am not a bit surprised, therefore, that suggestions are made that Seretse feels the position is such that it cannot go on like that, and that he is ready to resign. I would hope that would be so. Then suppose he did—and this is why I was asking the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman today. He has given up as Chief because the position has been rendered impossible, not by the present Government but by the action of the then Government saying plainly to the tribe: "You have unfortunately got a Chief who is not fit to govern you for at least five years."
I will not refer to recent events, but supposing this country had tried that suggestion with James II, I wonder what would have been the position? We would have said to him: "Go away. You are not fit to govern. Go off with your new Queen and little boy. Get away to Paris. We do not know for how long, but certainly for five years, and then we will have you back upon the Throne." It really is an impossible situation, and anybody who acts after that has to deal with the situation so created.
Now comes the question whether he could go back as a private citizen. He is entitled to. He is certainly entitled to go back amongst his people. His property is there; his home is there; they speak the same language. He is entitled to do that, but there is the difficulty that if he does go and there is a new Chief, to whom will the tribe then owe loyalty? That again is a difficulty that has been created.
I myself would wish to see him go back. Whether he could go back immediately or not, I really do not know, because of the situation that has been created by this action. My one regret—and I blame the Government for this—is that they have acted so precipitately in this way; they should have taken more time to consider the right thing to be done in the interests of everyone.
Someone rightly said that the paramount interest is the interest of the tribe.

Of course, along with that, naturally, is the interest of this young man and his wife and children. How can we best deal with the situation created now? I wish that the knife had not been brought down this afternoon upon this matter, and that more time had been given to discussion and finding better ways of dealing with the situation.
We are well aware that the whole of Africa, thank God, is awake. It is not a question now of merely South Africa but all the way from Arab belt to the Cape of Good Hope, and what we are doing in one place is now known in the others. What we want above everything now is wisdom, understanding and tolerance in dealing with these people—holding out the hand of friendship, helping them along the road we all wish they would go. I deeply regret that this action has been taken this afternoon, instead of waiting to see whether we could not devise some better way of getting out of the difficulty that was created on 8th March, 1950.

8.22 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I listened with pleasure and sympathy to the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I agree with almost all that he said, but not quite all, as the next few minutes may show, but I do not think that he made out a very strong case for delay.
Seretse Khama married without permission, and not merely against the advice of his friend and uncle and Regent. I think that we may be inclined, in view of the great publicity which this matter has received, to see more in it and to attach much more importance to it than the matter really deserves. This is not so unusual in history. There are plenty of precedents among rulers, leaders and heads of families and other persons where an individual choice, freely made, has, nevertheless, led to consequences which have affected a career, and I think that we are apt to exaggerate the importance of this matter. It is, indeed, commonplace enough in the general pages of our history and to almost every people.
The last Government came to what was obviously an interim decision. They got out of their difficulties by banishing Seretse for a time. They may have hoped that swiftly, before it was too late, the


marriage would be dissolved or would have proved childless, or the second or third wife might come along, which would have been perfectly proper according to the morality of the tribe—and that is the relevant morality—and the matter have resolved itself in that way.
The Secretary of State in the Labour Government was not right to take that chance. But much time has now passed, much difficulty has arisen and much controversy has divided and thwarted this tribe. It seems to me that there is danger if a solution is not found, and that is why I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery did not make out a good case for delay in case something should turn up. I cannot myself feel that anything is likely to turn up, and since the paramount interest is that of the tribe, I think that a decision was required, and Her Majesty's Government have shown courage in making a decision.
It has been said, "No one should threaten, least of all Dr. Malan." Let it be placed indubitably on record that Dr. Malan did not threaten to take a view about this matter or intervene in this matter. I think that it would be wise, as well as gracious, if Members of this House on both sides realised the sovereign independence of the Union of South Africa and left them to manage their affairs, as we would reasonably ask them to leave us to manage ours. I understand that Dr. Malan did not intervene at all, that he made no recommendations and no representations, directly or indirectly, and that the British Government did not ask for any advice or help from South Africa.
My own opinion is that that was a mistake on both sides. I consider that the relationship between Europeans and Africans and coloured and Indian peoples in the sub-Continent is such a vital matter that there ought to be consultations between powerful Governments, sister-Governments in the Commonwealth, upon all matters that touch their interests, and especially upon controversial matters like this.

Dr. H. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important statement. He stated that to his knowledge Dr. Malan neither directly or indirectly has brought any pressure to bear in any way on this question at any time. I do not know whether the hon.

Gentleman was in direct personal contact with Dr. Malan, but I should like to know whether he can give us any information as to where we can get any authoritative opinion that Dr. Malan at any time kept aloof and did not make any statement of any kind on this matter.

Sir I. Fraser: I can only say that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who was the Secretary of State at the time, told me personally that that was so, and the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has told me so today. I take their word for it. Nevertheless, I consider that to be a mistake of British policy.
I think that the relationship between Britain and South Africa is so important that in all these matters touching our interests, and especially matters of a controversial nature, there ought to be this kind of consultation. I think that, may be, a solution of this matter would have been much easier if there had been consultation, and if the difficulties and the apprehensions which may have influenced right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been frankly brought out into the open and, had they existed, clearly stated.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) said that the law affecting mixed marriages was altered quite recently since Seretse left Africa. I think, as a matter of fact, that is an error. The law affecting colour relationships between white and coloured people has been altered lately, but the law between black and white has been in force for a considerable time and outdates this controversy by many years.
I do not think that we can leave mixed marriages out of this matter, and I want to say a word or two about that subject in the hope that what I say may not stir up emotional feelings and but by its very practicalness—practical common sense perhaps—will lead to understanding. Let a man marry whom he likes freely, but if he occupies a position of responsibility, if his head wears a crown, or if he is the head of a State or a leader—perhaps a leader of a party—he must be careful whom he marries.
I have not the slightest doubt that if the Leader of the Opposition, through some accident to his present wife, were next week or next year to marry a girl


from the Bamangwato tribe, in spite of the friendly exhortations and the presence at the marriage feast of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, this event would undoubtedly hasten the advent to the leadership of the Labour Party of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is that not a fact?
It is all very well to say that a mixed marriage 6,000 miles away is all very fine to us here, all white men in this Parliament, but it is when we bring this matter into our homes and into our families that we realise the depth of feeling which it arouses. There may be places in the British Commonwealth where mixed marriages are accepted, but southern Africa is not one of those places. Consequently, this question is a relevant one.
I said in the lifetime of the previous Government, and I repeat it now, that our leaders are right to bring this matter to an end because this man did not consult his tribe and did not listen to his uncle, Regent and guardian, and has taken a course which would be most difficult and most disagreeable to Europeans and Africans alike in the setting in which Bechuanaland is placed.
Under the arrangement made between this country and South Africa in 1925, and enshrined in an aide-memoire of that date, there is an obligation on this country and the South African Government to consult each other on the matters relating to the High Commission Territories. Therefore, we ought not to ignore the opinion of our fellow countrymen and our fellow Commonwealth folk, many of them our own kith and kin, of both races within South Africa.
Let it not be misunderstood and thought that the policy of separateness in South Africa is a policy of Afrikaans-speaking people. It is a policy of both the white races, and, in my experience, 95 per cent. of them. It is not a policy which will be broken down or changed in favour of some ideal solution by hot words and angry sentiment but only by working together over a long period of time.
The question is much simpler than it seems. The young man may marry whom he likes, but he cannot inherit if he marries such and such, just as the

Leader of the Opposition could not possibly lead the Opposition if he married a girl from the Bamangwato tribe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Could he?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Commander Harry Pursey: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman opposite to make several references to private matters relating to the Leader of the Opposition? Surely he could take any other example he liked instead of making an attack on the Leader of the Opposition and bringing to this issue a party political matter.

Sir I. Fraser: There was no attack. I have the utmost regard for the Leader of the Opposition, whose private life is an example to all of us. I took that example because simple-minded hon. Members opposite would not understand this unless I brought it home to them.
It was expedient that one man should die for the people.
It is expedient that Seretse Khama—

Mr. Driberg: Bad taste after bad taste.

Sir I. Fraser: I have yet to learn that it is in bad taste to quote from the Good Book.

Mr. Driberg: It depends on the context.

Sir Richard Acland: Caiaphas said it.

Sir I. Fraser: This is a case where Seretse Khama, because of the choice he has made, which I hold him free to make, is not suitable, in the circumstances in which he is placed. It is a very simple issue, often repeated in our history, and there is no need for us to get fussed about it. The appointment of a Chief is an appointment of the Paramount Power. It must be so, because these people and similar peoples are not yet ready to appoint people by elections themselves.

Mr. Frederick Messer: They had Chiefs before we got there.

Sir I. Fraser: Cetewayo was one of them, and he ruled in a manner which would do the hon. Gentleman a power of good, but it is hardly one which would appeal to the Fabian Society. Since we


have this responsibility, we must exercise it, and exercise it for the good of the tribe. Because the Labour Government, up to a point, and the present Government, in the difficult circumstances of the time, have acted in the interests of the tribe, I give them my full support.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I hoped that nobody in this House would ever be putting forward the proposition that because Seretse Khama had contracted a mixed marriage, that fact alone should disqualify him from the chieftainship of the tribe. I was surprised and shocked to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) do so.
This territory is under the protection of the British Empire, and it has for long been a doctrine for which the British Empire has stood that the colour of a man's skin should not stand in the way of his rights. If an African tribe said, "We object to this man because he has contracted a mixed marriage," the Imperial Power might feel it wise to defer to local sentiment; but that is not the position here. The tribe have made their views quite clear, and it is certainly not for the Imperial Power, the one that claims to have the wiser judgment and the longer view, to impose a racial barrier if the African people themselves do not wish to impose it.
What was in issue here was not only the mere fact that the marriage was mixed but whether it might have been contracted precipitately and without due regard for the people. I take it that we should all accept the view that somebody who holds a high and royal position must have regard in all his acts to the feelings and wishes of his people. If he is going to do something such as contracting a mixed marriage, which is bound to be the subject of a great deal of criticism, then it is all the more enjoined on him to exercise the very greatest care and consult his people first.
The late Government were faced with the situation that this was a mixed marriage, but that it was a marriage which had been contracted apparently with imprudence and precipitancy and without previous consultation with Seretse's people. Then side by side with that consideration came some other considerations.
In the first place, there was the question as to the mass of tradition which surrounds an African chieftainship being a suitable instrument for dealing with the problems of the 20th century, and whether this was not the time to make some alterations in that form of government of that territory which would be more suitable to the needs of the times. There was also the question of the relationship between the Bamangwato and what I believe are sometimes called the "client" tribes in the Bechuanaland Territory.
For all these reasons there was a case for saying, "Here we have a situation where sooner or later some alteration in the form of government or of the chieftainship will have to be made, and possibly a native council will take the powers of the chieftainship, or the powers of the Chief may be altered through the creation of a native council." At the same time all this coincided with the conduct of a particular chief, which was called in question.
Put all those factors together and it might not be unreasonable to say, as it has been said, that we should have a five-year trial period, during which we would be entitled to make certain alterations in the form of government of that territory. That was what was being attempted. It is entirely open to hon. Members in any quarter of the House, and it is perhaps particularly to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), to say that the decision to have this five years' waiting period was all wrong.

Mr. C. Davies: I said it today.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I said the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a right to say it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).

Mr. Sorensen: So did I.

Mr. Stewart: I do not wish to exclude anybody. The Members of the Government are in actual touch with the latest information from that part of the world, and it is certainly open to them to say that this peoriod of trial, in which it was hoped a new form of government would be created, is breaking down. They are the people in most immediate contact with the territory. It is certainly open to


any hon. Member who wishes to criticise the late Government to say that the five-year trial period was a wrong decision.
But anyone who says that imposes upon himself the responsibility for finding what is the right position. I cannot speak for any of my right hon. Friends in front of me, but I do not believe that they or anyone else who was connected with the late Government would in any way feel any resentment or any sense of injustice in hearing the present Government say that this five-year plan was wrong, but only if the present Government can come along and offer the right solution at the present time.
If that five-year trial period is rejected, then the only possible alternative to it is to accept Seretse Khama as Chief despite the risks that attach to that aproach, as they do to the handling of all these African problems. Certainly in many of them enormous risks hang on a decision. I repeat that the only possible alternative to the five-year trial period would be the acceptance of Seretse Khama as Chief.
What were the reasons advanced for the five-year trial period? The first one is that Seretse Khama acted imprudently and precipitously, and with lack of counsel in his marriage. That might be a reason for delaying his advancement to the chieftainship because he is a young man in whom imprudence, particularly in such a matter, is a venal offence, but it could not possibly be advanced as a reason sufficient in itself for excluding him forever from the chieftainship.
The other reason advanced was that it might be possible during these five years to develop an improved form of Government in Bechuanaland, but that is exactly what the Government say they cannot do without a Chief. The line may be taken that we do not care very much for African chieftainship as an intrument of government and that something more modern is wanted.
There are reasons for saying, "We cannot get along in managing the affairs of the African people without paying regard to the deep-rooted views of the African people." But this solution is neither the one nor the other. It is to be the solution of a chieftainship but a chieftainship which can have no roots in the people, nor can it have the influence and the sanction of tradition behind it. There is

no justification, either in justice or in expediency, for this solution.
I say to the Members of the Government and to their supporters behind them—"Be as loud and critical as you like of the late Government, but having rejected the solution which the late Government adopted and which we are now told is unworkable, you should seek a decision which does not offend human justice, as the permanent exclusion of Seretse Khama must do, and which does not offend against common sense, as does the attempt to create a kind of synthetic chieftainship, which has no reason or sense behind it.
We have been told with great emphasis by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what the decision of the Government is. May I say here that we in this House hold the hon. and learned Gentleman in the greatest respect, and we know that he is anxious in this matter, as in all matters, to reach a right and just solution. That is why we were profoundly distressed to hear of this decision from his lips. He has told us that this decision has not been influenced by the wishes or policy of Dr. Malan, but the policy of Dr. Malan's Government in the Union of South Africa is one of the great factors affecting not only the Union of South Africa but African politics and African government throughout that country.
One may say, as did the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, that Dr. Malan's governance of South Africa is for the South African people to determine, but we cannot divide the world up in that manner. A policy which affects the rights of the Africans is bound to create problems for us as the Power which rules over so many African subjects.
Nobody wants to point to the divisions of policy between the different countries of the Commonwealth with any pleasure but there is no good dodging the fact that the policy adopted by Dr. Malan's Government differs from the policy of any British Government, not merely in degree and in detail, but in a fundamental principle. It has always been the rule of our Government that we should work to a position where there is complete equality of rights between men, whatever the colour of their skins. Some may say that we have advanced towards that goal


too slowly, but at least we have held that that was where we were going.
Dr. Malan does not hold with that view. His Government is based on the principle of the permanent inferiority of the black man, and, by a horrible perversion of Holy Scripture, Divine authority is claimed for that. Anything that we do in Africa after a decision of this kind must inevitably be interpreted as a personal injustice to Seretse and an affront to his people who want him there.
It is bound to convince a great many Africans, who do not have the advantage, which we will have of hearing the Under-Secretary on this subject, that the policy of the Government as announced today is a victory for the doctrine which inspires Dr. Malan's Government, and to which any British Government, by their very nature, must be opposed. That is why the decision, if it is persisted in, is liable to have frightful consequences.
I am sorry to see the attendance in the House tonight. The decision we are making is one of the greatest that this Parliament has been called upon to make. We are now at a great watershed of history. I believe the Government are making a decision that will turn British Imperial development and human development down a wrong and disastrous turning. I beg the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to think again on the matter, and to think of the frightful consequences on African opinion that will follow from this decision.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: It is monstrous that the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), should accuse my hon. and right hon. Friends who form part of the present Government of making this decision to which he attaches such immense importance. The decision, as the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said, was made by the Administration of which the hon. Gentleman was a member last year and the year before. Therefore, if all these considerations were so important to his mind at that time, why did he not take the action that anybody would who felt strongly and sincerely on these matters and go into the Lobby with the Liberal Party, some of his own colleagues, and many others like myself from our benches?

Mr. M. Stewart: The decision taken by the present Government excludes Seretse permanently. That was not the decision taken by the late Government. I do not think the Government Front Bench would say that it was. If the hon. Gentleman says that the decision of the present Government follows logically from that of the late Government, perhaps he will develop the argument and show how that comes about.

Mr. Alport: The point is quite clear. Not only did the late Government make the decision, but they recognised, in the White Paper, that they were doing it. They said "at least five years," but there was every prospect, and they knew it perfectly well, that at the end of five years there would merely be another extension of five years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
The decision that my noble Friend has had to make on this occasion has clearly been made in the best of faith in order to do right as far as possible both by the tribe and by the individuals concerned. It has been made necessary for him to do it because of the mishandling of the situation right from the beginning—not simply when the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was in occupation of the office, but before that when his predecessor was in office.
Why did the tribe change, between the first kgotla and the second kgotla, from opposing Seretse to supporting him? The reason was the indecision in supporting the original decision of the kgotla. Had it been made clear to the tribesmen of the Reserve that they would get the support of His Majesty's Government, as it was at that time, I have not the slightest doubt that what was decided at that first kgotla would have held good to the present time.
What happened? The dynastic quarrel which had been going on in the Bamangwato for many years took a new turn. The opportunity had arisen to oust from his position Tshekedi Khama, one of the most outstanding Africans of our time, just as his father was one of the outstanding Africans of his time. It was an opportunity to get rid of Tshekedi, who was a firm governor and a firm father of his people to them, and of putting in the opposite faction. That is precisely what happened. Anybody who knows Africa, as hon. Gentlemen opposite


know it, will realise that it is easy in those places for quarrels within a tribe suddenly to change the point of view of the tribesmen, especially when, as in this case, the leadership of a not very popular but an exceedingly efficient and outstanding African was at issue.
What has happened tonight is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking sides, not so much on a great issue of principle but in a dynastic quarrel in a tribe in a British Protectorate.

Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way—

Mr. Alport: No, I have only a short time. There have been a number of speeches from that side of the House and very few from this, and I have to sit down in five minutes.
What has been so unfortunate and unhappy throughout this controversy has been the fact that emotions which so often present themselves on the other side of the House when matters of this kind arise have inflated the problem from the real issue, which concerns a tribe, to the gigantic issue of race relations and the colour bar. That is not the basis on which we tonight should be judging this question. We should consider first of all the position of the tribe.
What, after all, would have been the situation in the tribe in five years' time had the ruling given by the previous Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations held? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that it would have been possible to put back Seretse after that long time? Does he really think that, in spite of all the lack of contact Seretse would have had during those five years, and with the changes and developments in the political life and institutions and point of view of the Africans, he would have been able to go back and become the effective leader which that tribe must have, particularly when that tribe, on the admission of the late Government, was restless and divided and would have continued to be so had this ruling held?
What really was happening was that the late Government, finding itself in a quandary, was merely postponing making an inevitable decision, hoping against hope that something would happen to get it off the horns of the dilemma on which it was impaled. What did the Government do? Not only did it do a

great injustice to the tribe but also to Seretse himself. If, as the Government knew, he could never go back there, why did it not have the courage to tell him so straight away? Why did it not make it possible for him, a young man not to waste a year or two years of his life, as has happened, but to get on with making a career for himself in some other sphere where his services might have been of the greatest value?
That, after all, is what my right hon. and noble Friend has done. He has acted fairly with Seretse. He has told him the truth as he sees it, in the interests of the tribe and of Seretse himself. What is more, he has issued to Seretse a challenge. I have never met him, so it is not for me to say whether he should take it up or not, but it seems to me to be a reasonable challenge. It is that in the event of his showing that he has all the capacities, if the situation is such that in due course his banishment from his own tribe—not from the chieftainship but from his own country—should not be perpetual, after an alternative Chief is securely established in the native administration, Seretse and his wife can return.
That, surely, disposes once and for all of the accusation that this is connected with the mixed marriage. This is an issue which affects the individual, the chieftainship and the tribe, and it is on that basis alone that we judge it tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Driberg: I have promised to condense a number of points into a very few minutes, and so I hope I shall be excused if my speech is rather disjointed and I do not give way to interruptions.
I thought that a rather unworthy personal smear was made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) when he said that Seretse Khama is, or must be, by now what he described as a nervous wreck. That is completely untrue, as any who have had the pleasure of meeting Seretse Khama in the last few days, or even this evening, will know perfectly well.
I now come to the statement made this afternoon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. There are one or two points upon which I should like to comment. It contains more than once, quite rightly, the word "promised,"


"The White Paper … promised review …"Surely, it can be understood that to the people in Africa it is quite evident that Her Majesty's Government are breaking that promise. They do not distinguish clearly, as we do here, between one Government and another. They simply know that it is the British Government—His or Her Majesty's Government—that are breaking a promise once given.
My next point on the statement is that there is a somewhat dishonest understatement about halfway through it, where, as with an apparent concession, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
It is true that a considerable proportion of the tribespeople have on occasion demonstrated their readiness to designate Seretse as chief.
Note the expressions, "considerable proportion," "on occasion" and "their readiness." In fact, that means, as I have no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that probably 98 or 99 per cent. of them demand him, and have demanded him, as Chief, not merely on occasion, but at every kgotla held since the British intervention.
There is a rather material point towards the end of the statement. I cannot help feeling that if a statement of this kind is being put out today, or whenever it may be, to the tribe, in a way the Government are trying to put a sort of bluff across the Bamangwato. The statement says that the Government
have decided that their predecessors' refusal to recognise Seretse must be confirmed and made permanent and final …
I should have thought—I speak subject to correction by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has much more legal knowledge than I have—that it could not just be done by an ipse dixit of that kind but that an Order in Council would be needed, and that that in itself would not be an irrevocable act and could not be described as permanent and final, since, obviously, no Government or Parliament can commit absolutely its successors. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with that point in his reply.
There are many things in the speeches made by hon. Members opposite on which I should have liked to comment. One thing that, surely, is quite clear is that it is true that all this trouble has had a bad effect on the unity and morale

of the tribe. They had been torn by dissension. But there is one thing, and only one thing, that does unite the tribe, and that is their demand for the return of Seretse. That is the only basis of unity. I, with some of my hon. Friends, have always maintained throughout the last year or two, throughout all this troubled business, that the only satisfactory solution of the problem was to allow both Tshekedi and Seretse to return.
Right at the end of the statement there is a slightly hypocritical indication or promise:
that Seretse Khama should absent himself … until an alternative chief has been securely established with his own native administration.
Will any District Commissioner in the foreseeable future take the responsibility of saying that the alternative Chief is so securely established that it is safe for Seretse to go back? I do not think that as things are he will, and I think the tribe will break up and rend internally into a number of groups of squabbling king makers if Seretse does not go back.
I understand that Seretse Khama refuses this job in Jamaica. His reasons for doing so are honourable. One of them is that he says Jamaica is, after all, a much more advanced country than Bechuanaland and there are many educated and skilled Jamaicans, and he does not see why he should do one of them out of a job which they could do perfectly well.
The whole statement and atmosphere of speeches of hon. Members opposite are nauseatingly hypocritical because everyone knows it is the welfare and interest of the tribe which ought to be paramount. But what has been paramount in this business throughout is the disgusting racial prejudice of Dr. Malan.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I regard the wider question, of which the statement we are debating tonight is a part, as a very difficult one. There have been divisions of opinion on our side of the House about this problem, and indeed on the other side, too, on some aspects of it. We are certainly not inclined to think that there is any easy and simple solution which would settle the whole thing in a moment.
But, although I make that approach to it, I can find no excuse for the unholy mess the Government seem to be making of this whole problem. The statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman read this afternoon has been very carefully drafted to try to tie up the decision which it announces with the previous decisions of the Labour Government. They are thereby trying to cover up the nakedness of what they are doing themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), to whom we are very grateful for raising the matter, said, if we read the statement with any care we find there are, in spite of the careful drafting, extremely important departures from the policy of the previous Government.
There is all the difference in the world between saying, as we did, that it is a very difficult problem to face, so let us have an interlude of five years so that the situation may settle down and they may even choose a third chief—it is certainly a possibility—and we can look at it again in the light of events. There is all the difference in the world between saying that and what the statement says, that this is permanent and final and there is no more flexibility nor chance of adjustment.
Moreover, this has been done in a way calculated to make the worst possible impression in the tribe. The statement, in that it contains a studied disregard of the express views of the tribe, almost looks as if the Government were going out of their way to provoke the known views of the tribe in this matter. Here there is also a great and complete departure from the policy we announced and carried out on this side of the House. Our policy was to exclude both Seretse and Tshekedi Khama for a period of at least five years in order to give a chance for the tribe, which had been much troubled, to settle down and also to enable more representative institutions to be developed.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) asked what we would have done at the end of it all, but there has been a very great interruption of the course of things as we had intended and hoped they would go. I must say outright that the chances of the tribe settling down, the chances of developing representative

Government, were very gravely prejudiced by the other side of the House for party advantage.
First of all the Prime Minister took the Motion that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) had on the Order Paper about Tshekedi Khama, changed it, and used it in order to try to beat the Government. On our side of the House there were clear views, and the Liberal party had extremely strong views. But on the other side the present Prime Minister was taking this as something which he thought he could use to beat the Government.
Then came the issue of this statement which has no relation at all to the sort of things they were saying in this House and in another place when we discussed the question of Tshekedi. The Motion was moved in this House, and in another place by the present Secretary of State who committed himself to a number of statements of principle about this very matter which he has certainly violated today. He said:
A British citizen should not be deprived or restricted in his rights and liberties except as a result of some offence of which he has been convicted under the law.
And he made great play with that. He said:
We have to take into account far wider considerations than merely local administration.
The whole of this White Paper disregards both those principles enunciated on 27th June in another place by the present Secretary of State.
I think those two debates were the turning point in the problem with which we now have to deal. Undoubtedly, the disorders which broke out in the tribe, the consequences of which we still feel, were connected with that debate, and the irresponsible course on which the present Government set itself for party advantage has led it to the present position in which it is. They have allowed Tshekedi Khama to go back, but Seretse Khama is kept out. That is awakening the alarm of the tribe. It is awakening a fear that the Government wanted Tshekedi Khama as chief if he was sent back while Seretse Khama is kept out. That was made clear in the reports of the observers and at a meeting of which I have a record between the High Commissioner and the leaders of the tribe in Serowe on 19th December.
Fears have been awakened by the acts of the Government of which this statement is the final completion. These fears cannot be resolved by mere words. Then after awakening all these fears that the Government will force Tshekedi Khama back on the tribe comes this decision, and it is against the background of all that that we have to consider the matter. This will confirm the very worst suspicions of the tribe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said the White Paper containing provisos has been the one stable factor in the whole situation. Now it is, in effect, torn up, but the net result is that the tribe is getting the complete and total opposite of what they want and have constantly made clear that they want. Some things were disregarded before, but now they have everything opposite to what they want, and that is what the Government has done largely because of the position it took up for party advantage on an earlier occasion. I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it makes the chances of another chief being chosen very slight indeed.
That is the basis on which this whole statement of policy rests, and the chance is now very slight. Indeed, if we take into account the steps which the Government have taken since they have been in office, they are really making nonsense of their own policy and showing themselves to be extraordinarily clumsy and inept.
I should like to say a few words about the offer of employment for Seretse Khama. There is much to be said for an offer of employment in itself. Of course, it is for him to accept it or not. I want to make two comments about it. First, there are many other places besides Jamaica, some of them far preferable, where offers of employment could be made. Secondly, and this is much more serious, to combine the offer of employment with a deposition—because that is what it amounts to, although it is not legally and technically that—from the chieftainship and all the rights of chieftainship, really is an offer which it is extremely difficult for any honourable man to accept.
This is putting forward an offer in a way which makes it practically unacceptable. There again, the Government are

contradicting their own policy. There is something to be said for making an offer of this sort: there is nothing to be said for putting it forward in a way which makes it derisory.
Again, I must ask the hon. Gentleman about the timing of the actual announcement. I mentioned this at Question time today. I cannot overcome my invincible suspicion that this is designed to forestall the deputation that is coming from the tribe, and to give the Secretary of State ground for the ill-advised decision that he took not to see this deputation which has already been announced.
I do not know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us, whether or not this deputation has actually left, but it is at least on the point of leaving. That makes it all the more suspicious, if this statement goes out a day or so before they are due to leave, that this timing has this shabby end in view. It is really unworthy of the Government of this great country that it should time things like this in order to forestall deputations. In any case, the deputation ought to be seen.
On this side of the House we certainly do not necessarily identify ourselves with the view of the deputation. Indeed, nobody knows exactly the view of the deputation. But the deputation with strong feelings like this, and after all these troubles in the tribe, is ready to come over to this country at its own expense. When the Secretary of State who is responsible for them announces that he will not see them, and then issues a statement like this, which is in order to forestall their departure and to make their arrival nugatory, that really is most unworthy.
The decision not to see this deputation was made, of course, by the previous Secretary of State I hope that it might be possible, without loss of face, for the new Secretary of State to think about it again. This is not the whole big issue. It is only a small issue in relation to all the others, but it is a matter of some importance. We on this side of the House attach importance to it. If the Government do not change their minds, they will be going deliberately out of their way to flout the tribe; to flout their known views; to trample upon them; to give the impression that they really pay


no attention at all to them, and that they have no concern with their views.
That is the general impression given by the whole statement of the measures taken before it comes—that there has been a grave and dangerous flouting of the views of the tribe, that a situation has now been created which is calculated to have the worst possible effect on the tribe. I do not want to say anything more, because words can become misrepresented as they get carried across the world. We cannot possibly agree with, or associate ourselves with, the statement we heard this afternoon. It is in itself a very grave departure in very many respects from our own policy. It is in itself unwise, unnecessary and ill-timed. Even if we accepted the premises from which the Government depart, it is still contradictory and likely to be very dangerous indeed.

9.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The debate has covered a number of varying arguments and has ranged over a fairly wide compass. I am not complaining about that. There is a genuine division of opinion among hon. Members opposite. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have different views about the way in which the problem of this tribe could be settled. It has happened in other matters also that this division has occurred.
I want, first of all, to deal with the matter on the footing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite accept the decision of the White Paper, and to see exactly what the Government have done today. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite sought to say that the decision of the Government today was entirely different from the one in the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was making that point, and so was the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).
The decision of the White Paper was to exclude Seretse from the chieftainship, and to review that decision after a period which would certainly not be less than five years. During that period, the White Paper said that it was hoped that representative institutions would be developed of the sort described in the White Paper, and which the hon. Gentleman envisaged

when he spoke in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill last year; but it has been proved impossible to develop these institutions without having a chief. The object of the White Paper could not be achieved because it was found that, in the tribe itself, in order to form the African Council which it was the policy both of the previous Government and of this Government to form, nobody would come forward unless there was a chief around whom to group this council which the White Paper hoped would be formed.
One of the main bases of the reason in the White Paper for coming to this decision and leaving the chieftainship open was falsified, and the object of the Government today, which is the wellbeing of the tribe on the lines laid down in the White Paper, has been advanced along those lines. In my submission, the decision which has been reached today to make the exclusion of Seretse permanent is one that does logically follow from the decision of the White Paper, because the hopes which were expressed have not come true.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite also sought to say that one of the reasons why the Government had been inept or clumsy in this case was the timing. I would assure the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that, in the period in which the previous Secretary of State, Lord Ismay, was in office, this matter took up more of his time than any other single subject in the Commonwealth Relations Office. There were more meetings and discussions about this than any other single subject.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman one question? If this matter was discussed so much, how is it that Seretse only knew that the matter was under consideration last Monday, four days ago; and, secondly, why, if the Secretary of State was so keen to reach the right solution, he announced that he would not meet the delegation from the Bamangwato tribe?

Mr. Foster: This Government regarded the matter as one on which they must make up their own minds, and in that they differed from the previous Government. With regard to the question of timing, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the same course should be followed by this Government as was taken


by the previous Government, namely, that they should oscillate and vacillate, not come down on any decision, but put it off. It will be remembered that, in the first kgotla of November, 1948, the tribe came down against Seretse. If it was right to exclude Seretse—and I am arguing this part of the case on the assumption that is was right—then this was the time, in November, 1948, for the decision to have been taken so as to end the uncertainty in the tribe.
The second occasion on which the Labour Government should have come to this decision was when the result of the Commission of Inquiry was known to them. As was said in the White Paper, they, too, came down on the same side and unanimously advised against the recognition of Seretse. Even when the White Paper was issued, a compromise was adopted of not making the decision final, with very bad results to the tribe. Instead of taking that final decision, the Government said it would be reviewed in five years and at the same time sent out three observers.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said something which I think is of profound importance. A question was put to him about it in the opening speech—why could not this matter have waited for two or three weeks, at the most? Why could not the Government have waited to make up their minds until they had received and heard the deputation? I gather that, in reply, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "That is the difference between our Government and the last Government. We make up our minds." Does that mean that in all questions affecting the African Colonies the Government intend to make up their minds without receiving representations from the native populations?

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The question was in two parts and I was answering that part about timing. I will come to the question of the deputation in a moment. I need not recapitulate what I said, but it was in answer to criticisms suggesting that the Government had timed this decision in order to coincide with certain events in South Africa. The time-table was laid down before those events happened; it had nothing to do with them; it is not connected with them; and I

think the hon. Member concerned did a disservice to the well-being and the unity of the tribe by connecting the two things or imputing that, in the view of the Government, those things were connected.
In fact, I believe it can be said that some of the remarks made in the debate are not calculated to assist the tribe in the object we all have in mind—the achievement of unity and well-being. I do not mean that there should be no criticism advanced and no arguments, but I criticise the way of presenting them and I think that, in the case of one or two passages, it would have been better to have expressed them not exactly in that way.
The situation about the deputation is this. When I intervened, I said we knew that the majority of the tribe at present would almost certainly express their preference for Seretse Khama. The exact majority is, I think, a little more in doubt than the hon. Member for Maldon said, because it is a long time since the kgotla was held and he probably has not taken into account the followers of Tshekedi who are in the Reserve—those of them who were silenced by the rather energetic and vociferous minority. We might differ quite honestly about the size of the majority. The hon. Gentleman said it was 90 per cent. I should have thought it was lower.
I agree, as I did in my intervention, however, that probably a decisive majority, as is said in the White Paper, was in favour of Seretse at the previous kgotla. We know what the deputation would have said. They would have come along and said, "A decisive majority of the tribe want the return of Seretse Khama." I am dealing with the point of whether the deputation could have added anything new to the arguments or to our knowledge. We knew what they were going to talk about. They have their constitutional methods of making known their wishes through their district officers and the commissioners to the High Commissioner in South Africa. Their views have been expressed, and what they amount to is, as I say, that a majority of the tribe wish the return of Seretse Khama.

Mrs. White: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that in recent discussions in December and January last with the Resident Commissioner and the


High Commissioner, representatives of the tribe, according to the records of this discussion which I have, expressed very strongly the feeling which they had that Tshekedi himself had always been received in London and had had his case very fully discussed in London—and as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have myself been a supporter of Tshekedi. It was, therefore, not unnatural, perhaps, for those persons to fear that possibly their views might not have received attention in London.

Mr. Foster: Obviously, that is a perfectly sound point, but the difference between the two has been explained to the tribe. The difference is this, that Tshekedi's views were excluded by the majority of the kgotla. They did not allow the minority to have any views. The hon. Lady probably remembers what I am alluding to—that when the observers went out Tshekedi's partisans and followers were not allowed to express their views. Therefore, to my mind, and, I hope, to the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that is reason for allowing Tshekedi to come over here—

Mrs. White: May I carry my point a little bit farther? Tshekedi's views were not indeed expressed publicly in the kgotla of the tribe, but they were expressed—and expressed cogently, I believe—to the representatives of the late Government.

Mr. Foster: Yes, but they were not allowed to be expressed within the Reserve, and it was thought right that they should be allowed to be expressed here. Also it will be remembered that a distinction was made in the White Paper between Tshekedi and Seretse. In the case of Tshekedi, he was excluded only from the Reserve; in the case of Seretse, he was excluded from the whole of the Protectorate. I submit to the hon. Lady that the case was not at all the same, and that it was also necessary to have Tshekedi here in order to explain the terms that were offered to him. It could not be done at all that distance. It was necessary for the Secretary of State to see him, just as he had to see Seretse, and put forward the terms that he should go back to the Protectorate in due time, giving up all political activities.
Of course, that is again where—I am making no complaint about it—hon. Members opposite seem to differ. Some of them are in favour of the Government's decision to allow Tshekedi to go back; and some, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), are not in favour, because, as he argues, by sending Tshekedi back we shall give the impression that we are trying to make Tshekedi the chief of the Bamangwato tribe.
The policy which has been laid down by my noble Friends, is that it should be made perfectly clear to the tribe that there is no intention of allowing Tshekedi to assume the position of chief, or, in fact, any political position at all in the Reserve. I submit that that is one of the definite steps of the policy by which we are trying to achieve this unity, well-being and progress of the tribe. The first step is to remove an injustice to Tshekedi and allow him to go back, but taking no part in politics. The second step is to end the uncertainty of the tribe caused by the vacuum of having no chief round whom to group themselves.
I agree that this is the responsibility of the Government, and it is the responsibility of the whole Government and the whole Cabinet, and not the responsibility of one Minister or another. The second step is to support the conclusions in the White Paper as to the reasons why Seretse should not be chief of the Bamangwato tribe. But making the exclusion permanent instead of temporary is necessitated by the fact that until the Bamangwato have a chief round whom to group themselves they can be in no position to make the progress we want, and the administration must be faced with insuperable difficulties in their day-to-day administration of the tribe. It is for that reason that, ever since this Government came into office, my noble Friend has given such anxious and close attention to the situation of the Bamangwato tribe.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite suspect that there is any dark political reason, or the desire for party advantage, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick said, let us examine that. What party advantage could we get today by running into all this trouble from hon. Members opposite? Others have said that we were trying to carry out a manoeuvre for the


advantage of the party. If we are looking for a quiet life and the possibility of not raising any more arguments, opposition or criticism than possible, why not let the thing go for five years? Unless the reason was the good of the tribe, what earthly reason was there—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It might have been for the benefit of somebody else.

Mr. Foster: I will deal with that in a moment. What earthly reason was there for us to run into this trouble? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that it might have been for the benefit of somebody else. By that I presume he meant the benefit of Dr. Malan. I imagine he means that, otherwise I cannot answer what he says.

Mr. Silverman: Something of the kind.

Mr. Foster: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, even with his fertile and twisting mind—I mean no disrespect to him; I mean one that is very subtle—can find any reason why—I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should leave the Chamber, because I genuinely did not mean any disrespect to him, except to say that he has got a very flexible mind, which sometimes approaches a thing from all angles.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Leave him alone.

Mr. Foster: I am only trying to apologise to the hon. Gentleman who has left, if he took any remark of mine as meaning any disrespect.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: It is a clumsy way of doing it.

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman says it was clumsy, I admit it. I did not mean it that way. I think I ought to deal with the point he made. I do not think that anybody could imagine any reason why at this moment we should make the exclusion permanent instead of temporary to please any interest in South Africa. There is no advantage from that, and no possible reason why it would appeal to any people in South Africa more than the decision arrived at in the White Paper. That is the point I wanted to make to the hon. Gentleman, who I regret has left the Chamber. He cannot, I believe, give any reason why changing the decision of the White Paper from a

temporary but almost certainly permanent exclusion, subject to five years' review, into a permanent and final exclusion would be to the interests of South Africa.
Coming back to the main line of the argument before I was deflected by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I should like to say that the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Smethwick in one of the debates for disregarding the decision of the kgotla are, in my view, just as strong today as they were then. He probably remembers the passage in which he put forward the view that the kgotlas were one factor but not the overriding factor. He said:
We must give due weight to the kgotlas, but it cannot be argued that if we have the final duty of preserving good Government in this territory and of preserving its integrity, we must accept without question, the decision of a kgotla as if it were a Parliament in Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 352.]
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also made a point that it was for the Protector to come to a decision. The views of the kgotla were one of the factors which must be examined, but if the reasons given in the White Paper for excluding Seretse from chieftainship were accepted, then the views of the tribe to that extent must be disregarded. The right hon. Member for Smethwick went on to say:
It is perfectly fair to argue that we ought not, in the circumstances, to have ignored or overridden a kgotla, but it is not right and fair to argue that we had no right to do so and to come to the decision we did. I think the argument, therefore, must be upon the question whether we were, in fact, justified, as the hon. Member for Oxford said, in coming to this decision which we had a right to come to.
The reasons for our decision are set out in the White Paper and I do not want to traverse the whole ground again. It is that, in our view, having taken all evidence we could, and having consulted all opinions we could, the unity of the tribe was better served by the suspension of the recognition of Seretse Khama as chief. In our view, there were and would be, if he were recognised, grave dangers of a serious, continuing division and split among these peoples."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 353.]
So the decision which the Government came to was, first of all, to send Tshekedi back without taking any part in politics, and the second, to make the decision of the White Paper permanent instead of


temporary, and I think that hon. Gentlemen can well imagine how unsatisfactory a decision that was to say that a young men and his wife were not to know for certain whether they were to be permanently excluded or not.
If we look at the reasons in the White Paper—and I think the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), was dealing with that point, and there was some challenge back and forth across the House—I would draw his attention to the fact that the reasons given on page six on the White Paper included these words:
The tendency in this tribe to disputes about the succession would be aggravated by uncertainty as to their future attitude towards the children of the marriage.
There is nothing in the world in the five years which could have cured that. There is no development in the five years which could have indicated the future decision of the tribe before it was time to review the decision about Seretse. The other reasons given on page six of the White Paper were that Seretse had shown himself to be unmindful of the tribe, and that:
Peaceful administration would have become increasingly difficult.
It is a question of either coming to the conclusion that Seretse should be excluded for ever or of not having exclusion at all. There was no justification in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government for making this exclusion temporary.
The third conclusion in the Government's policy was, of course, a very important one—the one about the future and standing of Seretse himself. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House would have taken the view that to make the exclusion of Seretse dependent upon this very ambiguous condition that it would be reviewed not until five years had elapsed was very hard on him as a human being.
Seretse came to London. He passed part of his Bar examinations, but he did not pass another part, and it may well be that not passing it was due to the uncertainty of his position. I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon that the description "a nervous wreck" does not fit Seretse. I have met him and enjoyed his company, and I have tried to help him pass his Bar exams.
A friend of mine, who is a fellow of a college, offered to tutor him in an honorary capacity. I also got in touch with the Bar Council, who are always glad to help the Council for Legal Education in showing where a candidate is particularly weak. They may say, "You are weak on real property but not on equity." I hope that if Seretse continues with his Bar exams, my small efforts will help him to success.
The Government was anxious that Seretse should have a successful and full career. I am still on the footing that the decision in the White Paper to exclude him was right. I know that hon. Members will say that the best way of fulfilling his career is to allow him to return to the Reserve, but I am dealing not with hon. Members who hold that view but with those who supported, and support, the decision in the White Paper.
The decision was to offer him employment in Jamaica. That was where there was a vacancy. It was not a question of creating a post for Seretse. It was a post which was vacant.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What was it?

Mr. Foster: It was the post of an Administrative Assistant in the Colonial Service in the salary range of £770—£920, with a prospect of promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, and after a probationary period of one year he would be established and pensionable, and he would, naturally, also have the rights of a Colonial civil servant with regard to the widows' and pensions funds, overseas leave and so on.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a narrow but very important point. Do I understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that from the very wide range of the Colonial Service the only vacancy at this moment is in Jamaica?

Mr. Foster: No, but one has to choose a vacancy which one thinks is best suited to him and then offer it to him. It must be remembered that one cannot very well offer a whole range of posts at a given moment, because one has to—

Mr. Griffiths: In considering what post to offer, did the Government decide that no post in Africa could be offered?

Mr. Foster: The Government approached the matter in rather a different


way. They found the vacancy in Jamaica, which appeared very suitable. Arguments could be advanced either way. It might be said that if he were present in the African Continent the tribe might still look to him as Chief. I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's question on the footing that the Government's decision to exclude Seretse permanently from the chieftainship of the Bamangwato is right, on the footing that the tribe would continually look to him if there is any uncertainty or possibility in their minds of him going back. So the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to exclude him altogether and make it permanent and final subject, of course, to the right of subsequent Governments to alter—

Dr. Morgan: Why?

Mr. Foster: Because if they do not do that the Bamangwato tribe will still be unable to progress in the way in which we want them to because they would be in a permanent state of unrest.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. and learned Gentleman rode off very airily with "subject, of course," and so on. That was the point I asked him about. How is this going to be put to the tribe? Is this statement being read to them today or tomorrow, and will they be told that this decision is permanent, final and irrevocable?

Mr. Foster: To my mind it would be the greatest disservice to the tribe to say that Her Majesty's Government have come to this decision, and then to say, Of course, you can always hope that some other Government will get into power and undo this decision." Hon. Gentlemen opposite know what the word "permanent" means in the context of a sovereign legislature.

Mr. Driberg: The tribe do not understand that.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that Seretse Khama is going to Jamaica under a cloud, and can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what steps are to be taken to dissipate that cloud so as to enable this gentleman to have a fair start and a fair chance in Jamaica?

Mr. Foster: I think he will, and the only slight cloud is what is in the White Paper. That is a question of record.

Mr. Hughes: But he has been expelled from his own country.

Mr. Foster: His expulsion, as the hon. and learned Gentleman calls it, follows naturally from the decision of the White Paper, and I should like to pay tribute to the Governor and his Council in Jamaica for the way in which they have welcomed the appointment of Seretse, and to say that in no sense can it be regarded as a bribe or anything degrading, both of which words were used in this debate. The offer of employment in Jamaica was made entirely bona fide, and it is an interesting job which Seretse Khama will have. In addition to his other income, he will have that from his property in Bechuanaland, and if he accepts the job as I still hope he will, it remains open to him—

Mr. H. Hynd: Why is the offer confined to Jamaica? Was there no suitable opening in Saint Helena?

Mr. Foster: I do not think that that sort of intervention helps the well-being and unity of the Bamangwato tribe. As I said, hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to put forward their arguments, but to say that there are motives which are unjustified is against the good government of this tribe and against the cause we have at heart.
In the last few minutes I want to turn to the arguments of some hon. Gentlemen who ask, why not send Seretse back? Put in a nutshell, this Government thinks that the decision in the White Paper was correct, and it is for those gentlemen who disagree to take issue with their own friends and say, as some of them have said, that the decision was wrong and unworthy of the Labour Party.
I want to pick out an observation made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, who said that Seretse had been sent to Jamaica. The intervention just made also indicated the same point, implying that Seretse had been banished, as Napoleon was. Seretse has not been sent or banished to Jamaica. He has not to go there unless he wants to. He can stay in this country. It is quite true that he cannot go home. We think that the decision of the White Paper excluding him from the chieftainship was right, and that the decision to make it subject to a review in not less than five years hence was entirely wrong.

Mr. Brockway: Since the hon. and learned Member has referred to me, may I ask whether Seretse will be allowed to return to Africa? He need not go to Jamaica and he can go anywhere, but will be be allowed to go to parts of Africa other than Bechuanaland?

Mr. Foster: I must say that I had not thought of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In the discussions, Seretse has not asked to go to other parts of Africa. When the question arises it will be dealt with. At the moment, the exclusion order applies to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. It may well be that he might be allowed to go to other parts of Africa, provided that the place is not such as to create uncertainty in the tribe.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Surely Seretse can go anywhere in the world except to Bechuanaland.

Mr. Foster: Then the answer is that he can go there. We think that the decision in the White Paper was correct in principle, but was wrong in application

because it did an injustice to Tshekedi which we have remedied. I have not noticed any word of praise for that from those who otherwise approve of our action. Those who hold the view that Seretse should go back should realise that it would militate against the objectives which we all have in view, the wellbeing and unity of the tribe.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: On a point of personal explanation. In regard to one remark about Seretse being a nervous wreck which I made in my speech, I hope that I did not say anything that was hurtful. I meant that Seretse was feeling very disturbed.

Mr. Benn: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes 308.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Coldrick, W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Adams, Richard
Collick, P. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Cook, T. F.
Glanville, James


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gooch, E. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grey, C. F.


Ayles, W. H.
Daines, P.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Balfour, A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Grimond, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bence, C. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hamilton, W. W.


Benson, G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, W.


Beswick, F.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Hargreaves, A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hastings, S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edelman, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowen, E. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hobson, C. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holt, A. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Burke, W. A.
Field, W. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, J.
Follick, M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, M. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Janner, B.


Chapman, W. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Clunie, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Cocks, F. S.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)




Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Keenan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Kinley, J.
Paton, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Poole, C. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lewis, Arthur
Porter, G.
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Turner-Samuels M.


Logan, D. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Tthomas, Sir Lynn


Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, H. C.


MacColl, J. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


McGhee, H. G.
Rankin, John
Wade, D. W.


McGovern, J.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W.


McInnes, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McLeavy, F.
Rhodes, H.
Weitzman, D.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Richards, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
West, D. G.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manuel, A. C.
Royle, C.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Schofield S (Barnsley)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Messer, F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, E. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Morley, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Slater, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mulley, F. W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Murray, J. D.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. F.


Nally, W.
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Steele, T.



Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braine, B. R.
Crouch, R. F.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Davidson, Viscountess


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
De la Bère, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Deedes, W. F.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bullard, D. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Donner, P. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barber, A. P. L.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Douglas-Hamilton. Lord Malcolm


Barlow, Sir John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drayson, G. B.


Baxter, A. B.
Carson, Hon. E.
Drewe, C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cole, Norman
Erroll, F. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Colegate, W. A.
Fell, A.


Birch, Nigel
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Finlay, Graeme


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fisher, Nigel


Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)







Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Foster, John
Linstead, H. N.
Robertson, Sir David


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Robson-Brown, W.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gage, C. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roper, Sir Harold


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Russell, R. S.


Gammans, L. D.
Low, A. R. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)


Godber, J. B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott, R. Donald


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gough, C. F. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Hon. John
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Snadden, W. McN


Hare, Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Speir, R. M.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hay, John
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marples, A. E.
Storey, S.


Heath, Edward
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hopkinson, Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Touche, G. C.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Osborne, C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Partridge, E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Jennings, R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wellwood, W.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.



Leather, E. H. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Mr. Butcher.


Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

Question again proposed.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: When we interrupted this debate a little more than three hours ago, to discuss the succession to the Bamangwato tribe, I was in the middle of a good tempered and hard-hitting duel with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, but at the moment the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be in the Chamber.
I wanted briefly to raise three most important issues that seem to lie behind this Bill. I was saying at 7 o'clock that the debate a year ago was dominated by the doctrine of the ceiling, and the right hon. Member the ex-Minister of Health said this a year ago. So it was and so to a lesser extent is it today.
We know how the ceiling originated in the National Health Service and how in the Budget of 1950 Sir Stafford's chopper came down on the expenditure as it was then running. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said earlier in his speech tonight, and appeared to take pride in it, that in the first full year's experience of the scheme the Estimates were not exceeded. It is necessary to look a little behind the meaning of that. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the Estimates of 1950–51. This scheme started on the 5th July, 1948. It is arguable, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes so to argue, that he learned nothing from the first 10 months of the scheme and very little from the succeeding year. It seems to be not a thing of which one should be proud.
Indeed, it can well be said by those deeply interested in the Health Service that the greatest service the right hon. Gentleman rendered to the Health Service was to let expenditure run riot in those years because, finally, when the chopper came down there was money available for health. The point I want to make about the ceiling is that everyone will agree that the ceiling of £400 million is an irrational one.
It would mean in itself nothing, just as, for example, the ceiling of £410 million on the food subsidies means nothing in itself. We have been committed to a ceiling of £8 per head. There has been no examination, assuming there must be a limit to decide whether it should be £7, £8, £10, or £11: we do not know.
I suggest that between now and the next Budget we should study the proportion which health ought to bear to the whole of our national expenditure. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a number of caustic remarks about what we might call the Danckwerts award. He said that award to general practitioners horrified him. Let me say that it delights me.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an unbalanced scheme, it is the unbalanced scheme we have had. We have had a situation in the Health Service, under the care of the right hon. Gentleman, in which we paid more in gross income to 10,000 dentists than to 20,000 general practitioners. We had a situation, and indeed it is the situation at this moment before this Bill passes, in which the expenditure on drugs in this country is £11 million more than the amount paid to the general practitioner. It seems to me that now we have a chance to get this scheme back into balance, and this question of proportion must be the first of the three matters which I wish to put to the House tonight.

Mr. Baird: If the hon. Member considers that the dentists have been paid too much and the doctors too little, why was it that hon. Members opposite, before he came into the House, were attacking us for cutting the income of the dentists?

Mr. MacLeod: That goes straight back to the Spens Report. There was a Spens Report on the dentists and a Spens Report on the doctors, and it was because the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale chose to blind the dentists with gold that he accepted the Spens Report on the dentists.
The second of these most important points—and I think this is the most important of all, and one on which I hope to get some measure of general agreement in the House—is the question of a deterrent. Exactly what is the deterrent


effect of health charges? It is most important that we should know. It is true that all charges, and perhaps health charges in particular, have a deterrent effect; in fact they are designed to have. We have had the experience of 1951, and when I argued this point with him a year ago I tried to get from the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) the deterrent percentage on which he and his Ministers were working. I have made a close investigation and I think that these figures are correct.
I believe that last year the Government thought there would be a deterrent effect on dentures of about 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. and on spectacles of about 10 per cent. Let us see what has happened and whether it was—as in my view it was—much greater. There are a number of factors which seem to me to bear that out. We are told that the salaries of many dentists have dropped by one-third. If dentures accounted for 61 per cent. of their income, it follows that the deterrent effect was well over 50 per cent., as I am sure it was. We know that there are far more advertisements now in the "British Dental Journal" than ever there were, and that there are applications to join the School Dental Service.
To take the optical service, my Liberal opponent in the 1950 election, who is a director of an optical company wrote to ask me, in view of the unemployment among his workers, if it was possible to obtain contract work with the Ministry of Supply. All these examples provide an unanswerable proof that the deterrent effect of the health charges is far more than we dreamed, and far more than we think today.
Two very important conclusions follow from that which I should like to put to the House. It can be argued—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of the argument he is now putting forward is that if the charge were high enough, the deterrent effect would be so effective that the whole Health Service would be wiped out, because no people would take advantage of it.

Mr. MacLeod: The argument is almost precisely the reverse. It can be argued that a deterrent charge for health

is an advantage provided, and only provided, that a switch of resources follows. It was because of that that the Leader of the Opposition justified the "bob on prescriptions" as it is called, in order to reduce the queues at surgeries and free the doctors. If that switch can take place, and I recognise that there are differing views about it, it seems to me that these charges are overwhelmingly justified, not only economically, but socially and medically as well.
The last conclusion I wish to leave in the mind of my right hon. Friend is that I think I am right in believing that, particularly with the poorer people, health expenditure is a marginal expenditure and one of the first things which goes by the board if anything has to be paid for. Surely then it follows that, if there is a much greater deterrent charge—and I hope that the Ministers will look at this—it may be that they will be able to come to the House and, by Order in Council, achieve what we are trying to achieve in this Bill with a much smaller charge. That seems to be the logical conclusion if I am right in believing that the deterrent effect of the charges is much greater than was expected.
There is another point I wish to raise I know that this is my hobby horse, and I will not ride it again tonight. I wish to make a point about the National Assistance scales. Here again we are going down the wretched road which we have been plodding down in the last two or three years. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, was wrong this afternoon when she said that we would be taking power, not only in respect of the provisions of this Bill but in respect of the shilling charge, to send people to the National Assistance Board.
The truth of the matter is that when the National Assistance Act was passed there was in contemplation a National Health Service for this country. Accordingly, by the definition Clause in that Act, 'medical and dental care of all description was excluded from the National Assistance Board purview. It was also excluded that help should be given to persons in full-time employment. The first breach in that principle was in the Legal Aid and Advice Act passed by the late Socialist Government which, for the first time, brought within the purview of the


Assistance Board people who were in full-time employment.
The second and much the more important breach is one in respect of which I think the right hon. Lady missed the point. If she will read the Bill that she supported a year ago, she will find that the provisions relating to the National Assistance Board are not only identical with the Clauses in the Measure before the House tonight, but that the Socialist Government a year ago went out of their way to include Section 16 of the 1949 Act, which gives power to put the shilling on prescriptions. So it is unnecessary for my right hon. Friend to take any of these powers. The Socialist Government a year ago provided him with them.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he is correcting me?

Mr. MacLeod: If the right hon. Lady reads what she said, she will see that she said that it was this Government who were taking powers to put through the shilling on prescriptions and to put more people on to the National Assistance Board. I am pointing out that those powers are law already.

Dr. Summerskill: The Government are taking powers to do that tonight and next Thursday, and then on Third Reading and later when the Queen's Assent is heard in another place—powers which we have never taken.

Mr. MacLeod: I am sorry, but the position is this: the power to impose the charge is in the 1949 Act. The power to send these people to the National Assistance Board is in the 1951 Act. The right hon. Lady supported both those Acts.
The point I want to make about National Assistance is that it has been argued recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and myself that National Assistance scales are not appropriate to matters of health. That is the consideration that I want to put before the House. We argued that a year ago and we did not carry the House with us. I will not develop that argument again now.
We have argued and written that although it may be reasonable, and it is reasonable, for a man, before he can get subsistence from this country to have his

income at subsistence level, it is not so reasonable where he wants the Health Service for himself, his wife and his children. In exactly the same way we do not dream of asking in the various education charges that a subsistence minimum should be applied. The means test in education—and, of course, there is one—is on a considerably higher level than that for National Assistance. That seems to me to be the third of the big subjects which we really must consider before we come again to the Budget.
I have suggested these three big issues, on which I thought there might be some agreement, and, in my last few sentences I want to take up something which the leading article in "The Times" said this morning. "The Times" said, and I think it is a very wise saying:
The Health Service needs a health programme.
That seems to me to be exactly what it does need. Whatever our views are on charges, and mine are well known to the House, and whether they will be effective in reinforcing the School Dental Service or not, it is really essential that we should stop this patching, which has been going on from the very beginning.
Let us face up to this. There are three different parties with different points of view arguing this matter. I tried to show in my earlier remarks that the Liberal policy in this matter is a jungle of inconsistencies. As for the party to which I have the honour to belong, its views have always been clear. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in October, 1949, following the then Prime Minister, that not only should there be charges in the prescription field, but in the dental and optical fields as well. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education said the same thing in a broadcast, and it has been in dozens of our policy statements. It remains the belief of this party, apart from economic circumstances, that there should be charges in the Health Service.
It is a great pity—and let us admit it—that we have to discuss these charges in the backwash of the Budget, just as we had to discuss the charges of the Socialist Government in the backwash of last year's Budget. There is a genuine case to be made, apart from the economic one, and I have always believed in


these charges. It seems to me quite absurd that, when the economic reasons reinforce the social and ethical ones, we should not support them.
My final observation is that a year ago there were some dissentients amongst the Socialists about the merits of the Health Service, and there were bitter attacks on their Front Bench from behind and from below the Gangway. Let it be made quite clear that rejection of this Bill tonight means a surrender to the views of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Many people, members of the Socialist Party, who spoke so bitterly against the right hon. Gentleman a year ago may like to reflect a little more closely before they follow their bellwether into the Lobby tonight.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Hector McNeil: My hon. Friends thought that I might intervene at this point because there is a Scottish viewpoint on this matter, but I do not think I can do otherwise than try to pursue three of the main points which the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) has made.
I must say that there are some tempting side avenues which he has opened up. We have heard a quite severe attack on the Liberals tonight, but I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends at the time of the Election called the Liberals' policy a jungle of inconsistencies. The hon. Gentleman also quoted some very half-hearted phrases which some of his right hon. Friends offered during the Election, but he did not remind us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was here earlier, specifically assured the electorate that they would maintain the National Health Service on the level at which it then was. He made that statement at North Berwick on 10th October, but, of course, like all the other Tory pledges, it has been conveniently forgotten.
The hon. Gentleman is always very impressive in detail on these subjects, and I make that acknowledgment freely, but he was not so impressive when he came to principles. For example, will he vote in support of this Bill tonight, in spite of the fact that the concluding part of his argument was a very strong condemnation of this Bill?
The hon. Gentleman told us that he does not like the test of a subsistence level being the test of whether a charge should be made or not. He has said that before. He will, I think, agree that that is a fair statement. But that is the very basis of this Bill. The essential pivot of the whole service is the access of the patient to the general practitioner. The test of payment is whether or not the man or woman is on or above the subsistence level.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) gave us very considerable lectures upon this subject a year ago. He thought that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would be a better medium than the Assistance Board. Well, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will not be able to supply any information about the great section of the population who will be worst hit by this Bill. The Assistance Board are the only people who can apply the test to these people who are attacked by this Bill, and let us make no mistake about it.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West also asked us about the deterrents. I confess that I am not able to make up my mind precisely what the deterrent effect was on the ophthalmic and dental services last year, for the reason given in "The Times" this morning. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was equally accurate when he said that we had only one full year, but the fact which makes it impossible to make a reliable estimate about the deterrent effect is: What backlog was wiped out last year in both spectacles and dentures? It is not until we have a clear year dealing with only current demand that we shall be able to make any estimate.
Of course, the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech, like the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in presenting the Bill, was an attempt to argue that the steps embodied in the Bill are precisely the steps which we took a year ago, and that they are taken in exactly comparable circumstances to those prevailing a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true.
The hon. Gentleman asked us where we would have found the £20 million needed. The whole House knows the


answer. The answer is simply that, if the circumstances were so bad that £20 million had to be found at the expense of the health and misery of many, many poor people in this country, then there was no case for refunding £24 million by tax remission to a better-off section of the community. Of course there was none. By what standard of justice can that be defended?
That was not the position last year. The position last year was that, instead of making a tax remission of £24 million, the general public were asked to carry an additional £170 million, mainly for defence purposes. The position last year differed in another respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government was able to add £50 million to the social services without cutting food subsidies.
It differed in yet another respect—and I think the hon. Member for Enfield, West, is guilty of confusion here. The health estimates last year went up by £7 million, whereas this year they come back down to £393 million. That is a vast difference. The conditions are not comparable, and the proof that they are not comparable is that the Chancellor was able to come to that Box and say that conditions are so easy that he can remit taxes to people who do not so desperately need them as these people need a free medical service.
There is a second difference—and right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite must acknowledge this—that our partial charges for dentures and spectacles were not, in any sense, a penalty imposed upon sick people, and certainly not a penalty imposed upon the sick and needy.

Mr. Iain Macleod: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying the charges a year ago did not fall on sick people, would he like to explain the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition on 31st January, 1952, who said that these charges, with the exception of those in dentistry, did not fall on sick people? The main charge which we are taking power to impose under this Bill is also on dentistry. The position is identical.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in the debate in January, as in the previous October,

made exactly the point which I am now making. Is the hon. Gentleman going to ask this House to believe that a partial charge for dentures or a partial charge for spectacles is in any way comparable in degree to placing, as my right hon. Friend said, a barrier between the family doctor and the patient, and a barrier between the patient and the pharmacist? That is what worries and excites this House and about which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be worried by the public outside before we conclude the Committee stage of this Bill. Make no mistake about it. It is not comparable in that way.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to plead that they imposed a shilling per prescription charge because we did it. It is very easy to make the debating point that the amendment to the Act provided the power. It did. It is equally easy to make the debating point that the amendment to the Act provided the power to make Regulations relating to the Assistance Board. But the difference between us is that we came frankly to the House and said that the complications of making the necessary exemptions, which humanity, decency and a concern for the health of this country demand, are so many that we could not proceed with that charge. But the Minister of Health and his hon. Friends come tonight to say, "We know there are difficulties, we know there are these complications consequent upon exemptions, we know from the volume of study that has been done that they exist, but, nevertheless, despite your example and advice, we are going on with this."
How are they going to deal with the complications which undoubtedly exist—the complications, as my right hon. Friend said, of a mother with a family of five, six, or seven, waiting to see if the spots appear before she dares to bring in the doctor; the complications of the epileptic, the anaemic, the rheumatoid arthritic, the diabetic, and the chronic sick who know that until the day of their death they must go week after week to the doctor for advice and prescriptions?
How do right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite address themselves to these complications? By shutting their eyes, their ears, and their hearts, and pretending they do not exist. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentleman


opposite says "Friendly society." I do not know whether that is meant derisively or as advice. If it is meant as advice, it does not operate. If it is meant derisively, let the hon. Gentleman explain it to his constituents.
I predict that the Government will yield before the Bill goes through Committee. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us more about this aspect of the matter. Incidentally, the last time he and I were on opposite sides of the Table I was indebted to him for the correction of my arithmetic, and I have not had a chance till now to apologise for my error and to thank him for that correction.
I hope he will tell us, because he has the background for doing so. He has a family connection with a dignified profession, too. Let him tell us honestly what the Government propose to do about these difficult cases, these complications, which in one fashion or another must be met. Let him tell us particularly what is going to be done about the chronic cases. Have they to pay a shilling every time they go to the doctor? This is not a matter for the doctor to decide—not at all. This is a matter on which the doctors must be guided. They must have instructions. As the Bill reads, the doctor may put two prescriptions on one form; he may even put three; but he has not room for 50, and yet that is the sort of number these chronic cases must have.
Let me ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman about an allied point. The right hon. Gentleman told us, I think, that he was to have further conversations on such matters as that of the doctor who is his own prescriber. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us a little about this. In a little village, for instance, is the patient to go into the doctor's consulting room, be examined, have a prescription, and solemnly hand over a shilling, and then reclaim it at the Post Office next door? And then are the doctor and a Post Office official to write out a form and send it 50 or 100 miles, instead of walking next door to exchange the miserable shilling?
What about the country doctor who carries his prescriptions in his own pockets? Imagine the doctor going to a

cottage upon a hillside, examining a man, finding he is ill with pneumonia, and prescribing sulpha drugs—and then imagine the poor, shamefaced doctor demanding a shilling from the man's poor wife. Has the doctor to do that before handing over the sulpha drugs so urgently needed by the patient?
Complications of this sort will be multiplied many times over. Imagine it. That is the picture we now have of this great nation. What a picture to be presented by this broad-based Government with all the brains amongst them! Imagine them in the City of London scrambling about swapping a shilling for a form—and moving back to another office to recover the shilling. What a way to set the people free.
I should like to go on a great deal further, but I wish to make one point about the prescription proposal which I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to explain. The House must have noticed the difference between the English pharmaceutical expenditure and the estimated saving as compared with the Scottish. The ratio in gross expenditure is, as one might expect, something like seven to one, whereas the Scottish saving compared with last year is almost half the English.
There is obviously some further explanation needed there. I anticipate the explanation to be that the Scottish Estimates have already provided for the award that was made last year increasing the prescription fee to the pharmacists, and the English Estimates, as I remember, did not carry that. There was a subsequently negotiated agreement for the English pharmacists.
I would not trouble the House with a mere machinery point like that except to point out that if my explanation is correct, a further sum of approximately £4 million is to be saved somewhere in the Estimates of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. And since we are seeing these scrapings for the shilling, we might as well be told at the expense of what service the £4 million is being obtained.
I will refer only briefly to the proposals about dentistry. Like my right hon. Friend, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having had a partial return to sanity in raising the age from 16 to 21. A partial return to


sanity, because it still seems a little odd and stupid to spend money to create good dental health and to encourage good dental habits up to the age of 21, and then to take all the risks of destroying those habits and that health from then on.
I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will consider whether they could not assure us that they will amend the Bill to take in an extra year group every year; that is, that those people who are 21 this year should be carried on to 1953, 1954 and so on. At any rate it would be a consistent service, though it would still mean hardship for many people, but those we had treated would be carried on.
A great deal has been said about the award to the general practitioners. I am content to say that a contract was made and, of course, it has to be kept. But I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply will tell us a little about the instructions which the Government are offering to the working party charged with the job of distributing this £40 to £50 million. My right hon. Friend and myself, when we were involved in this matter, hoped very much that at least three things would happen.
The first was that a disincentive to the large list would be applied. This problem represents a marginal fringe of the profession. It is not a typical picture but it is a distressing picture. It means, as we all know, that men are presently carrying lists so large that they cannot exert that degree of professional responsibility which they should be able to apply to their patients. It should not be impossible to provide a disincentive here, and the working party ought so to be instructed.
Secondly, as a corollary, benefits should be made available to the middle group, the family doctor, who really is doing his job, carrying a list of under 3,000, being available all day and frequently at night.
Thirdly, I hope we shall be told that the young practitioner going into the unattractive areas will now, in the distribution, be offered a fee which makes it possible for him to go into those areas where doctors are so badly needed. My recollection is at present he is guaranteed £300 a year, a quite ridiculous sum, with the result that these young men will not be able to go to those areas where they are most needed. I do not know what

the figure should be, whether it should be £800 or £1,000 a year, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will assure us that these three points are being given proper attention.
I should like to pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), about other methods of effecting this saving. We all read with great interest the speech made yesterday in another place by Lord Moran. I think he talked a great deal of constructive sense on this matter. I believe he looks after the health of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate him on his success. What he should realise is that the policy of the Prime Minister is in a much more precarious condition than his health, and if he would apply to the Prime Minister's thinking some of the medicine he offered yesterday, it would help this House, this Government and the country.
The difficulty of establishing a line between essential and non-essential proprietary medicines is no longer too great. The work which was started by the Cohen Committee, and which has been supported by speeches of Members of all parties about this national appetite for drugs, has made the public aware of the position. It would have been risky at the beginning of this service to rush in and say, "This you can have and this you cannot have."
Now a well-chosen committee, carrying a reputation which the public find commendable, could easily draw a line and say, "These are inside the free service and these non-essential proprietary medicines are outside, and must be paid for." But, of course, none of us expects the Government to take that fight on because that would be taking on the big battalions. It is much easier to take on the poor the feeble, the sick and the people whom they hope will not reply.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Linstead: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and of commenting upon three points which he made in the course of his speech. First, I should draw the attention of the House to a remark which he made about something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod). The right hon.


Gentleman said that the test which this Bill applied was whether the subsistence level should be the level of assistance under the Bill.
If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Bill carefully, particularly Clause 6, he will see by the reference to people in employment and the power given to the Assistance Board to consider applications from them, that the Minister has removed the subsistence level as the level to be used as a criterion under this Bill.
The next point I wish to refer to is the proposal that the £20 million should not have been saved in the way proposed in this Bill, but should be a charge on the taxpayers. By that, the right hon. Gentleman can only mean that he joins his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in suggesting that the service is not a suitable one for an expenditure ceiling. I would remind him and the right hon. Lady, who I think fell into the same error, that not only was a ceiling imposed, very properly and inevitably, by the Labour Government, but that a further ceiling within the service was similarly imposed in respect of the hospitals.
If there was a section of the service where there should have been a higher ceiling, it was the hospital service; and if there was a section of the service which required a ceiling, it was the general practitioner service, where the cost of prescriptions has mounted enormously. What is being done through the Bill is what should have been done a long time ago—saving on sections of the service which have got out of control in order to apply the saving to sections of the service which badly need additional finance.
The right hon. Lady seemed to suggest that the result of the Bill would be a cut in the total expenditure on the service. In fact, it will not be so, and, fortunately, those who are interested in the hospital service will benefit from the fact that the general practitioner service and, more particularly, the drug bill, will be reduced and will thus permit another section of the service, which needs money badly, to expand.
The last point about the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I want to refer is his suggestion that by setting up a new committee it would be possible

to divide proprietary medicines into those permitted to be prescribed in the service and those which should be outside it and would have to be paid for by the patient. In effect, the Cohen Committee is doing that, but if we were to go a stage further and publish a list of proprietaries which could not be prescribed, we should not be affecting the drug bill seriously. That was in fact another error into which the right hon. Lady fell.
Much of the increase in the last couple of years in the drug bill has been due, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, to the prescribing of penicillin, aureomycin or streptomycin—the anti-biotics; and whatever we exclude from the National Health Service, it is clear that we cannot exclude those. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady made a fundamental mistake when they suggested that substantial economies could be made in the field of proprietary medicines in such a way.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about hospital administration, but I do not make such statements without discussing the matter not only with general practitioners but also with superintendents of hospitals, and I am told that even in the field of anti-biotics there is over-generous prescription. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is possible to prescribe penicillin and the other antibiotics unnecessarily. In fact, patients often ask for them and, in order to get rid of a patient, a doctor writes out a prescription. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite fair when he suggests that I have not taken into account the fact that the increase is due to such drugs as penicillin. It may be, but there is an over-generous prescribing of these drugs.

Mr. Linstead: I will separate my criticisms of the two right hon. Members, because the right hon. Gentleman said clearly that it was possible to effect big economies by putting certain proprietaries out of the service. If I may pursue this point without wearying the House unduly, my criticism of the right hon. Lady is that, while she was suggesting, as she has suggested again now, that there was over-prescribing, she overlooked this point—and I want to remind the House of it: the only effective way


of checking over-prescribing by practitioners is to have an efficient pricing system so that it is possible to pick out the prescriptions of those doctors who are over-prescribing.
Some hon. Members will remember that a year or more ago I had occasion to cross swords with the then Minister of Health on the grounds that under his administration the whole pricing system had broken down and that in consequence it had become impossible to check over-prescribing which the right hon. lady has referred to. We are rebuilding that pricing system but it is the failure of that system over the three, four, or five years following the war which has prevented the attack on over-prescribing which she has advocated.
One final thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock. Some of us have given much time, thought and labour to the development of the National Health Service and we feel that it ill becomes a right hon. Gentleman, with his record, to turn upon us and suggest that it is his side of the House which has sympathy with the poor and sick people of the country and to deny it to us. He must allow me to remind him that of one simple political lesson that I trust we will never forget—do not attribute to your opponent motives meaner than your own.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Will the hon. Member inform the House why he voted with his party against the Health Service?

Mr. Linstead: If the hon. Member wants to know the answer to that—and he is only repeating in another form the remark thrown at us by the right hon. Gentleman—he will find the answer if he compares the White Paper prepared by Mr. Willink with that prepared by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It is because the conceptions of a National Health Service presented in those two White Papers differed so much one from the other that this party on principle gave that particular vote, not against a National Health Service, but against a Socialist National Health Service.
I would remind the House that one cannot discuss this question in a vacuum. We had a discussion the other night on education, and those who took part

seemed to consider that education could be considered without relation to the general financial situation of the country. There is a tendency tonight to suggest that expenditure on health, can similarly be considered without relation to the general financial situation of the country.
The difference between the two sides of the House on this matter is that both parties have introduced proposals providing for charges on users of the Health Service. The difference is that we have had the courage to carry these proposals through whereas the other side have not had the courage to do what they knew needed to be done. The fact that we have introduced this Bill should also be regarded as some evidence that the original Act went too fast and too far. That is not only my own opinion but it is the opinion of some one whose views always commanded respect—the late Lord Dawson of Penn, who was by no means a reactionary representative of the medical profession.
What is proposed now, if it had been proposed in 1944, 1945 or 1946, would have been regarded as a great improvement upon what was then provided. The trouble with which we as a party are going to be faced, the unpopularity—let us have no illusions about that—is due to the fact that the original proposals went beyond what was practically possible for this country to do, and, consequently, we have had to undertake the always difficult operation of going into reverse.
I also suggest to hon. Members opposite, in continuation of what I have previously said, that once the Bill has been put on the Statute Book and is in operation, many of the difficulties, particularly the human ones such as have been suggested by the right hon. Member for Greenock, will be found to be less important than they now seem. It is being assumed by too many people that the doctors, who will have a great responsibility in connection with the shilling charge on prescriptions, will be merely automatons. That is a complete misunderstanding of the way in which they are likely to meet their responsibilities under the Bill.
For a long time past, doctors have been accustomed, even if only to keep their consulting rooms free of patients, to


prescribe quantities of medicine sufficient for a longish period. I have no doubt that they will continue to do that in appropriate cases. Also, I have seen many prescriptions with two or three persons' medicine prescribed on the one prescription. It may be forbidden by the Regulations, but it is done as a matter of convenience.
There is no reason why a sufferer from, say, diabetes, who requires regularly to take insulin, should go once a week to his practitioner. It will probably be found that he goes to him once a quarter.

Mr. Monslow: I do not want to state a personal case, but my wife happens to be a diabetic. The hon. Member's statement is incorrect. A patient does not get a quarter's supply. The average is about a fortnight's supply.

Dr. Summerskill: Hear, hear.

Mr. Linstead: All I am suggesting is that those diabetics who have balanced their condition, and who merely require a regular supply of insulin to keep themselves going, will not require to go even once a fortnight to their general practitioners. I use that instance only an a general example.
I believe that the Bill has been seized upon by the Opposition as a case for making party political capital. I believe that as soon as the Bill is in operation, it will be found that many of the objections which have been raised on the other side of the House do not exist. In the long run, the country will prefer a party which, recognising that something unpalatable and unpleasant has to be done, has the courage to do it, in preference to a party which seizes upon provisions of this kind, which they themselves recognised as being necessary, merely to make them an occasion for making party political capital.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. John Baird: I should first declare my interest in this debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) did not."]—as a practising dental surgeon. I should like to say a word or two about the speech made by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), who, I notice, has now left his seat.
After listening through the whole of the debate, it is obvious that the Government Front Bench know nothing about this problem. I have never heard a more hopeless speech than that from the Minister of Health today, and it was left to the hon. Member for Enfield, West, who knows the subject, to get him out of a mess. I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not do justice to himself. He made one of the most bitter speeches I have ever heard him make. He is usually reasonable. The thought ran through my mind that it is possible that, knowing his Front Bench was wrong and that he was in a difficult position, he became all the more bitter to get out of his trouble. The hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Enfield, West and other hon. Gentlemen opposite who know something about the Health Service, have been attacking their own Front Bench on these charges.
It has been argued time and again that these charges on dentures, spectacles, prescriptions and on dental treatment are a minor matter. I submit that they are of major importance. They attack the fundamentals of a free Health Service. They are no minor affair at all.
Last year the charges imposed by the Labour Government amounted to £25 million. This year, within 12 months, there is a charge of another £20 million. But, apart from that, the cost of living has risen by something like 10 per cent. In order to retain the ceiling at £400 million, we are losing another £40 million which would be the natural increase because of the rise in the cost of living. Therefore, the cut in the Health Service during the last 12 months is something like £85 million. That is no mere bagatelle. It is an attack on the fundamentals of a free Health Service.
Furthermore, if we grant the doctors this further £40 million next year, we have no guarantee that there will be no other attack on other aspects of the service so long as the Tory Party are in power. What are the arguments to justify these charges? I am one who attacked the charges made last year. I do not want to attack my own Front Bench, but the argument made then was that it was necessary to save £25 million on the Health Service to help to pay for re-armament. At that time re-armament was running at the rate of £4,700 million


in three years. It is now admitted by all that we cannot spend more than £3,000 million in three years.
It was then argued that it was necessary to cut the Health Service by £25 million to carry out the re-armament programme which we now know we cannot carry out in the time by some £1,700 million. Therefore, that argument was "phoney." If the Tory Party use the same argument, then again it will be "phoney."
The second argument is that we must make this cut to help the balance of payments problem. None of the charges proposed by the Government will help to make any contribution to the balance of payments problem except in so far as it reduces the purchasing power of the poorer section of the community—that at a time when profits are soaring and capital appreciation is mounting by thousands of millions of pounds.
At such a time why should the Government cut the Health Service, which brings so many benefits to the poorer section of the community? The arguments put forward by the Government are not arguments at all: they are excuses. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always hated the Health Service as the most Socialistic Measure we have carried out during the last seven years. They use excuses to attack the service which they hate.
Another argument advanced by the hon. Member for Enfield, West, was one which has been trotted out time and again by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was that by making these charges we shall help to encourage and build up the School Dental Service. I have never heard a more shallow argument. One would think when listening to hon. Gentlemen opposite that when they were in power before the war we had a flourishing, healthy, efficient School Dental Service, and that now that we are under the National Health Service the School Dental Service had withered away.
I said earlier tonight that the School Dental Service was always the Cinderella of the dental profession. Hon. Members should ask any dental officer working in the schools. They were often working without even running water in their surgeries. There were never enough dentists to do the job; it was always inefficient and second-rate. To argue

that we are destroying the service is simply ridiculous.
I am sorry the hon. Member for Enfield, West is not here, but the fact of the matter is that he ignored almost every argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). There has been some reduction in the School Dental Service, but, speaking as a practising dental surgeon, I can say that we work as a group of three dentists in my practice, and that one of us is almost wholly occupied in doing children's dentistry, while before there were very few children in the practice.
Under the free Health Service we give today, children are getting better treatment than ever before. The hon. Member may shake his head, but I am speaking from practical experience when I say that there is not a single dental surgeon who has studied this problem who will not admit that I am right. The reason the School Dental Service was inefficient was that it was dependent on the finances of local authorities, who were often hard up. This attack, representing the School Medical Service as having been neglected by us, is simply political eyewash.
Furthermore, let me ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he is going to save £7 million by this charge on the Health Service, and, at the same time, encourage dentists to go back into the School Dental Service, how he is going to pay the dentists? Even if he is simply transferring them from one service to another, they still have to be paid, and the only way he can do it is to pay the dentists more in the school service than they can get in private practice.
Another argument put forward by the Minister tonight is that these charges, and especially the charges in the Dental Service, will stop abuses. I have taken part in these debates for many years, and we always heard Tories talking about abuses, and saying that if only they were returned the abuses would be stopped. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who would ever go to a dentist to have a tooth out or to have one filled simply because they got it done for nothing? It is a simply ridiculous argument.
The charges for the dental service, in my opinion, are stupid. The suggestion of the Government that patients


going to dentists should pay the first £ of the charge for treatment is putting the clock right back. We in the dental profession have been advocating for many years that people should go to the dentist regularly every six months to have their teeth inspected so that we can catch dental disease at the earliest stage. We could not have a sillier charge than this, because it is a charge on the sensible patient.
There is a lot of talk about the shortage of dentists. The fact of the matter is that, before the war, there were two types of dentists in the country. For the middle and upper classes there were the conservative dentists—dentists doing mainly conservative treatment, who treated people who had their teeth attended to regularly. The mass of the working people could not afford 7s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. for a filling every time they needed one. For the working classes, there was another type, who engaged in what we call "blood and vulcanite dentistry." People waited until they were in pain, then had their teeth extracted and vulcanite dentures fitted. There was no shortage of dentists, because there was no demand among the masses for the ser-vices of dentists. The reason there is a shortage of dentists today is that there is a bigger demand for their services.
I remember the first time we had a free dental service was in the Forces. In the early 40's, young recruits were coming in and having their teeth inspected, some requiring six, seven or eight fillings, and a large proportion requiring dentures. But towards the end of the war these same people were coming back to us requiring usually about one filling every six months, with their teeth healthy. Then came the free Health Service, and I am delighted to see these young office and factory boys and girls coming to my surgery regularly every six months to have their teeth inspected and work done. We have raised the standard of the dental health of the great mass of the people. Now the Government come along with this criminal and silly method of imposing this charge, penalising the sensible people who realise the value of preserving their own teeth.
There is another important point I wish to raise tonight about the system

whereby up to the first £1 must be paid by the patient—and I hope the Minister is listening to this. The greatest abuse of the Health Service from the dental point of view in the past has been when a patient has been in pain requiring emergency treatment, gone to a dentist and found it difficult to get that treatment.
Under this new system, all emergency treatment will be carried out outside the Health Service, and the dentist will be able to charge anything he likes up to £1 for the treatment. There will be no control at all for emergency treatment. If the Preamble to the Bill is right, dentists will be able to charge as much as they like up to £1 for taking a tooth out, and if the patient requires assistance he will get that sum from the National Assistance Board to pay for it, even if it is outside the National Health Service. Robbie Burns once said that toothache was the hell of all diseases. Anyone who is suffering pain can be "blackmailed" very easily, and the right hon. Gentleman should think again about the fees to be charged by dentists for emergency treatment.
By imposing these charges we are not putting the clock back to 1945. We are putting the clock back to 1910, because since 1910 the insured population has been able to get free medicine, and a large proportion of the insured population has been able to get 50 per cent. of dental treatment paid for. Now we are doing away with all that and going right back to 1910.
Now I want to be constructive, and I suggest to the Minister, if he will listen to me, one or two ways in which we might make some savings. It is obvious that he is not interested in saving the free service but in introducing penal legislation to destroy it. I have advocated in this House time and time again—I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did not pay more attention to me in the early days—that if we had more inspection of dentists' work by employing more regional dental officers we could control the "spiv" dentists and save a considerable amount of money.
Next there is a specialised form of dentistry called orthodontic treatment—the straightening, etc. of children's teeth; a very important branch of the profession—which was carried out in the past by


specialist dentists. I do not feel competent to do it. Under the National Health Service—and remember, we made mistakes when we introduced the Health Service; we had a lot of growing pains, and this was one of the mistakes—we allowed any dentist to carry out orthodontic treatment. Today, in a written answer, the Parliamentary Secretary said that last year we paid £½ million for orthodontic treatment, and a large amount of that work was carried out by dentists who were not qualified or at least had not the experience to carry out that work efficiently. We should concentrate orthodontic work in our hospitals under proper control.
I am told, I think on good authority, that during the last few weeks there were submitted to the Dental Estimates Board estimates, one for £200 for treatment of a patient over six months, and another estimate for over £100. These estimates were amended to something like £150 and about £70. Surely we could put a ceiling on the amount of money paid for treatment, and save a considerable amount of money in that way. If the Minister of Health had really consulted the dental profession, we could have put forward many other ways of saving money without this attack on the patient who goes regularly to his dentist.
I finish by saying that in this House I have attacked the dental profession on many occasions. They have gone wrong and have sometimes taken a political attitude instead of a professional one. But, it is time the dental profession was left alone for a little while. This is about the fourth change there has been in their remuneration in the last four years. The dental profession is trying to settle down and do a decent job. If one is always chopping and changing, as is happening today, one will not get a satisfactory service. We must leave the dentists to settle down without any further changes.
I represent an industrial area of this country, an area where the workers in the factories have been making a large contribution to raising the productivity of our industries. We have team work there, and we have been getting these results because the ordinary people believed the Government in power was going to look after their interests. I warn the Government that if they start this attack on the Welfare State, and continue on the road

they are going, they will create industrial strife in this country. I say this in the interests of all of us. One of the things the working population of this country cherishes is its free Health Service. If the Government attack it, as they are doing, we will fight them next week and again the week after, and, at the first opportunity, we will remove the charge they are imposing, and, I hope, the charge we made last year also.

11.28 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I was not, unfortunately, able to hear the first part of the speech of my hon. Friend, the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), but I understand, he dealt severely with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). [Interruption.] I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to see how the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), has succeeded in emulating his master's voice. I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), had to say. Perhaps, she will not mind me reminding her of an occasion at the Oxford Union, when my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, followed her and said, "Really, to hear the right hon. Lady speak, you would think that every time the infant mortality rate went up there was a bumper supper at the Carlton Club."
I cannot help being reminded of that episode by some parts of her speech. She began by saying that the Tory Party was emasculating the Health Service, a remark, the import of which, not being sufficiently good at physiology, I am not able to understand. Before I come to the main part of what I have to say, there is one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is this old question of why my right hon. Friend voted against the Health Act in 1946. In 1949, there was a National Health (Amendment) Act passed, which provided, among a number of other provisions, that it was impossible to institute a full-time State-salaried service by way of Regulations under the Act of 1946. That point figured prominently in the reasoned Amendment which my right hon. and hon. Friends moved to the Act of 1946.
I suggest the provisions of the Act of 1949 showed my right hon. and hon.


Friends were perfectly consistent in moving a reasoned Amendment to the Act of 1946, while, at the same time, supporting the principle of the Health Service. If they had moved that the Bill be read "this day six months," that would have been another matter: but they moved a reasoned Amendment including an objection to one very important provision, which was afterwards deleted in the Act of 1949.
When I saw the terms of the Amendment, I must say that I was just a little surprised to see that it was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), because I was present when he proposed the Second Reading of the Act of last year. In that speech he laid great stress on the fact that ever since the time of Sir Stafford Cripps the idea of a ceiling on the Health Service was a settled feature of Socialist policy.
It really is not quite accurate to say, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) said, that the case for cuts last year was based simply on the exigencies of the re-armament programme.

Mr. Baird: I did not say "simply."

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman did begin with that point. He will find, if he looks up Sir Stafford Cripp's words in April, 1950, that the policy of a ceiling was adopted a long time before the re-armament programme. Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, last year said:
I would only say to some of my hon. Friends that even if there had been more money available it does not follow, as the night the day, that it must necessarily have gone to the National Health Service. Education, war pensions, old age pensions, and child allowances all received increased, but, if still more money was available, these items also, like the National Health Service, would rank high among the claimants for whatever was to be shared out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 232.]
I do not think that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would quarrel with those words at all. It is for exactly the same reason that there is a strong case for the charges in the present Bill.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think the hon. Gentleman will find that I said that Income Tax payers were among the list of deserving beneficiaries.

Sir E. Boyle: I concede the right hon. Gentleman that point, but so far as these other items are concerned—war pensions, old age pensions, and child allowances—he will agree that they have received attention in this year's Budget; and also the Education Estimates are to be slightly higher this year.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the former Minister of Health mentioned the whole field of social services which, in other circumstances, might be extended. He has chosen to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, that he was wrong in saying it was primarily due to the re-armament programme. Let me just refer to the speech of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget debate last year: He said:
The question is whether there should or should not be an increase. In view of the very high level of expenditure on defence, it is difficult to contemplate this."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT: 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 848.]

Sir E. Boyle: That is quite true, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, on 24th April last year—I will not delay by reading the passage—he will find that the right hon. Gentleman laid stress on Sir Stafford Cripp's speech of April, 1950, and said that that was settled Socialist policy.

Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman making a quotation now? He will not find the words "settled Socialist policy" in my speech.

Sir E. Boyle: I did not want to read it out because I did not want to take up too much time, but since I am challenged I will quote the relevant part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said:
In April, 1950, when the Chancellor's difficulties were not so great as they are today, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
'It is clear that it is not possible in existing circumstances to permit any overall increase in the expenditure on the Health Services. Any expansion in one part of the Service must in future be met by economies or, if necessary, by contraction in others. In exercising this essential control over total expenditure, regard will of course be had to priorities.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 59.]
That was in the Budget speech last year and every Member of the Government at that


time was committed to it, and I presume accepted it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 236.]
The opposition to the present Bill has taken two different forms. There are those, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, who, in the economic debate at the end of January said "Yes," in answer to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who asked:
Is the argument, then, that every year the cost to the State must go up?"—[OFFICIAL., REPORT, 31st January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 479.]
On the other hand there are those who, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who addressed us earlier this evening, who said that whereas last year there was a case for charges, this year there is not a case for further charges.
If the House will allow me, I will reply first to those who, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, think that the cost should go up each year as the cost of living rises and, second, to those who, as I think more moderately, suggest that whereas there was a strong case for increased charges last year there is no case this year.
I cannot understand the logic of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale because, surely, the view with which he and his hon. Friends are most closely associated is the doctrine that we must get our priorities right. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in the defence debate. He said how vital it was to get one's priorities right and how there might be certain occasions when one must have an overriding military priority.
If one believes that priorities are the things that matter most, how can one say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale said:
The National Health Service is now being crippled, not only by the direct charges, but at the same time by preventing it from having its normal expansion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 404.]
I suggest to the House that the phrase "normal expansion" is the negation of all that is meant by economic planning.

Dr. Stross: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he is giving birth to a most monstrous creed when he suggests that under no circumstances shall there be priority given to a service which prevents premature death and treats disease in all its forms; a service for which the hon. Gentleman has no feeling—I am glad to note how well he appears tonight—and does not understand. I speak with some experience of this. Does he mean that other things may go up in price, including salaries and wages of professional men and others, and that there must be no increase in the cost of that which serves the mass of the population? Let him answer, and tell us plainly now.

Sir E. Boyle: I must say that considering I was present all through the debate last night, I am perhaps looking in reasonably good health now.
I was not stating any doctrine of my own on this matter. I was examining the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman and I suggested to the House—and perhaps this time hon. Members will allow me to continue this part of my speech—that the phrase "normal expansion" is the absolute negation of economic planning. For my own part, I have never at any time agreed with people such as Hayek and Jewkes, who are doctrinaire anti-planners. I have always agreed with those people who say that the right way for us to promote social improvements is by what Professor Popper calls "piecemeal social engineering" and I think that very often even by small-scale social reforms one can prevent a great deal of avoidable unhappiness and misery.
But the corollary of Professor Popper's doctrine is that we must consider each development in social policy, and say to ourselves, "Is this really the way we want to go?" When we find, as we do this year, that the bill for prescriptions has gone up by £11 million from £39 million to £50 million, it seems to me to be the absolute negation of planning to say, "Oh, that is quite all right—it is only a 'normal expansion'." On the contrary what we must ask is "Do we really want to see that particular item of expenditure going up by £11 million a year, or is there possibly some other direction in which we should spend the same sum of money?"
I suggest that one is perfectly entitled to ask whether in the field of prescriptions there may not have been some abuses, just as the Leader of the Opposition in the economic debate in January admitted that there had been abuses in the field of spectacles and dentures.
I should like to say a word about the more moderate view, for which I have a much greater respect, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South and his colleagues of the official Opposition. They say that whereas the charges were justified last year, they are not justified this year, and in particular they claim that these charges will not help our balance of payments.
I want to suggest two answers. The first is that since the Budget there is no question that the position of the pound sterling has improved. There are a number of reasons for that, many of which are not relevant now. But I am absolutely convinced, and so are all my hon. Friends, that the fact that we have made a small reduction in the total volume of Government civil expenditure, and the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself determined to hold civil expenditure in check, have encouraged this increased confidence in the pound.
The second point is, in my view, still more important. My right hon. Friend has made a number of very heavy import cuts and he hopes to increase our exports, which means sending a large quantity of capital goods overseas. If one looks at the "Bulletin for Industry" for January one sees that it is stated:
In engineering … the home market may well have been taking supplies that were needed for export.
That tendency must increase when the full effect of the import cuts has made itself felt. The Chancellor can only achieve his target figures for lower imports and higher exports if he retains a close hold on the expenditure of all Government civilian Departments.

Mr. Monslow: How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer hope to increase exports through the policy which is being followed by this Government?

Sir E. Boyle: This is not a debate on economic affairs, and we have discussed this matter before. I should like to say,

however, that there is a good chance of increasing our exports of capital equipment. But, if by the end of January there was already a tendency to divert goods to the home market from the export market, that tendency must increase once imports have been still further reduced. The Chancellor, therefore, has to keep a close check on Government civilian expenditure, including expenditure on health.
I should like to meet one objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, which is a perfectly fair point, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unlike his predecessor, has given away a lot of money in tax reliefs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor admitted from the first that this was his intention. When discussing the connection between Government expenditure and the balance of payments he said in the House of Commons in January:
Constantly increasing taxation has required the maintenance of absolute levels of tax so high as seriously to check incentives to work and to enterprise."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 52.]
It is my belief that if we want to maintain the value of our social services we have to work to maintain it, and must therefore give every incentive to harder work and higher production. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the moneylenders."] The charge about moneylenders was fully and completely dealt with on another occasion.
To conclude, there is a charge sometimes levelled against us, which is completely false. We are told that we are a party which wishes to benefit the wealthier section of the community. I want to say only one thing in answer to this charge: the wealthier section were able to gain far more in a short time from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget than they can ever hope to gain from the present Budget.
On the general subject of re-distribution, I would say this: What we are seeing in the fiscal system today is not a re-distribution between rich and poor. We are seeing a re-distribution for everyone to everyone. Everybody today feels the effect of our tax system; everybody is concerned with the social benefits which our social services provide. I suggest that Treasury control over this vast expenditure on the social services must be a matter of importance to everyone at a


time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said in this House some little while ago, the volume of taxation levied on people with incomes of £500 a year and under is greater than the total sum of money spent on the social services.
I believe that this Bill is both important and valuable because it emphasises once again the determination of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should adhere to the principle of firm Treasury control over the volume of civil expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Holt.

Mr. Arthur Holt: rose—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to when a minority opinion can find expression. You will recall that a Member of a minority opinion was called yesterday. Does he have an opportunity each day? I would point out that some of us felt very strongly on the Health Service charges, and some of us were in a minority last year; and none of the five who felt so strongly that they voted against the charges have so far been called today.

Mr. Speaker: There are so many minorities that it is very difficult to get them all in. I felt that it was right to call the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), representing the Liberal Party, and I have called representatives of the party to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) belongs. With so many Front Bench speakers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—it is very difficult to fit everybody in.

Mr. James Carmichael: Further to that point of order. I do not want to make a point which might cause dissension, Mr. Speaker, but you have already admitted the right of minorities. This Bill will amend two major Acts, the Acts covering the Health Service in England and Wales and the Health Service in Scotland—two distinct Acts, one from 1946–51 and the other from 1947–51; and not a single Member from the back benches from Scotland, with over 70

Members altogether, has been called. I think we are entitled to make that point.
The second point is this. I do not want to emphasise it now, but last year five of us debated this issue and divided the House on it, and not a single one of us has been called to justify the case we submitted last year. I say, with all due respect to you, recognising your difficulties in the short time available—and I shall have some complaint to make through the usual channels—that we have undoubtedly been treated unfairly in Scotland, with not one out of more than 70 Members having been called.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about that. The hon. Member is good enough to realise the difficulty I am in. There are so many hon. Members who want to speak. The only representative of Scotland of whom I can think and for whom there is now room is the Joint Under-Secretary of State who, I understand, is to reply to the debate.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made some remarks about inconsistencies that he suggested were in Liberal policy regarding the Health Service and he finished by talking about there being a jungle of inconsistencies. I have made some research into this. I welcome the fact that he is taking an interest in Liberal policies, but I fail to see any inconsistencies. He made one particular reference, to April of last year, on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Act. I presume he was referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). He seemed to think that because my hon. Friend spoke for only nine minutes, that that was reprehensible. I should have thought the contrary.
I mention one sentence only of that speech. My hon. Friend said:
The degree to which we can help the sick depends on the amount of wealth available for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th April, 1952; Vol. 487, c. 257.]
We do not in any way retract from that, but there is a distinct difference between the charge made for dentures last year and the £1 charge in this Bill. I am advised that there is no clinical evidence to show that any benefit to health is gained by fitting dentures. On the other


hand, this £1 charge is a charge on conservation work, which is closely connected with health, and the charge will act as a deterrent to people to get their teeth attended to and keep them in good condition.
The Liberal Party take the view that we will examine each Measure as it comes along. If we think that a charge is necessary and will achieve its purpose, we will accept it. If we do not then we will not accept it. That is in no way an alteration from what we have previously said.
I would return to the 1949 National Health Service Act. There again we have been completely consistent. On that occasion the Liberals had a representative for North Dorset, Mr. Byers, and he spoke on the charge of one shilling on prescriptions. He said:
I do not think this is going to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2240.]
That is still the view of the Liberal Party, and it is not in the interests of the House that I should go over again all the various reasons why that is so. They have been well expressed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). I would remind her that, in the case of the 1949 Act, she voted for that one shilling prescription. Now apparently she thinks it is a very bad thing and she gave good reasons why it was administratively unsuitable.
I think that the official Opposition is a little inconsistent when it attacks the Government benches on some moral principle or ethical standard, saying that this is an attack on the poorer people and that therefore it is immoral. The fact that the Labour Party, who were then the Government, passed that Act, implies that they accepted the principle of the thing. They decided afterwards that it was administratively impossible to carry it out. That is the reason they dropped it.
I should like to put two points to the Government. We realise that the present National Health Service needs examining very thoroughly. I support the suggestion made earlier by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) opposite—I do not know his constituency—when he said of prescriptions that the important thing was to start using the method

by which they were checked under the old scheme before the present one was introduced: that is, that prescriptions should be arranged in "doctors' sequence."
At present, there is no effective check on whether there is over-prescribing and waste of money by any doctor or doctors in an area. I accept that that may entail, possibly, a small increase in Civil Service staff, but that small extra expense would be more than repaid by the resultant considerable reduction in waste.
Secondly, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the booklet—he has probably already seen it—"Voluntary Service and the State: A Study of the Needs of the Hospital Service." I shall not quote it at any length. Its most important recommendation is block grants to the regional boards. I ask the Government to examine this matter closely and to consider the whole method now used in financing the hospital services, and the possibility of introducing block grants. The result would be that the regional boards would have much more responsibility and would take a great deal more interest in the efficiency and economy of their hospitals.

Mr. Messer: They already do that.

Mr. Holt: I do not think that is the case. At present, it is done by a system of estimates from the hospitals, sometimes nine months in advance. They make lavish estimates because they do not know exactly what they will spend, and—

Mr. Messer: The hon. Member has not the slightest idea of the facts.

Mr. Holt: All I can say is that I certainly do not pretend to have the knowledge; but it is in this booklet, and the people who wrote it know a lot more than I do and, I suggest, more than the hon. Member knows. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the book?"] It is "Voluntary Service and the State: A Study of the Needs of the Hospital Service," published by Messrs. George Barber & Son, Ltd., for the National Council of Social Service (Incorporated) and King Edward's Hospital Fund for London.

Mr. Messer: They do not do any administration.

Mr. Holt: The price of the book is 2s. 6d.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member should not make statements of that kind without some personal proof. Anyone can read all sorts of books on any kind of subject, and somebody else could quote another book which expressed a completely contrary opinion. Many of us, on both sides of the House, are on regional boards. The hon. Member cannot indict the whole system of regional boards merely by reading a lot of piffle from a book.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member certainly is entitled to his opinion, and he is certainly entitled to express his view. I can only say that I have spoken to people on regional boards and they think that this is a very good idea.
I will quote something from the "Economist" which may be equally unacceptable. On 28th April, 1951, the "Economist" said:
What is virtually certain is that there will be pressure to increase the hospitals' budgets year after year so long as the present system of financing them is maintained. At the moment those responsible for running the hospitals have a direct incentive to overbudget and to spend on unessentials. Until they are allocated a certain sum, and given freedom to spend within that sum, no real economies in the Service will be made.
There is one last quotation which I wish to make. It is right up to date from the leading article in "The Times" this morning, which said:
This year as last year, though with a different Government, the Estimates contain more financial tactics than medical or social strategy. Their preoccupation is more with the imposition of an arbitrary, though necessary, limit on expenditure than with a distribution of the budget according to a clear pattern of priorities.

12.1 a.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I will do my best to speak briefly and to the point so that perhaps some other back bencher who wishes to speak may have the opportunity to do so. The Minister of Health today divided his argument into two parts. One part was to say that there were abuses, and the other was to say that the charges would bring about a restraint which was essential. It is my duty, and I do it sincerely, to suggest that no case has been made out by anyone in this House to show that abuses exist in the service.
If abuses exist, they can do so only with the connivance and encouragement, and can be due only to the lack of restraint, of professional people of all grades. If that be so, I suggest that such cases are few and far between. Let us assume that 5 per cent. of the patients force their way past doctors, surgeons and administrators and bring about some abuse. On the other hand, I claim from my knowledge that at least 10 to 15 per cent. of the population do not make full use of the service in the way they should if they are to have their rights and if they are to conserve their health and prevent themselves suffering from disease.
We are left with a great mass of people against whom no one can say that there is any allegation of any abuse whatever. If the Minister does not agree with me, and if the Parliamentary Secretary has knowledge which I have not got, I hope that some evidence will be produced to the contrary. The fact is that charges never can prevent abuse. The 5 per cent. of people I have assumed, if there be 5 per cent., will not be deterred from abuse by the shilling on the bottle. What the charges will do—and the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) made this point clear—is to reduce demand. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here at the moment, for even in the few minutes at my disposal I should have liked to cross swords with him.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West, said that he was amazed by the amount by which the demand had been reduced. He said that it was much more than he had expected. Since charges of a partial nature were made for dentures, the demand has dropped by half. About 1,000 dental mechanics are out of work today. It is said that since 1929, which was a year of slump in the trade, the ophthalmic trade has never been so badly off as it is today.
We know what these charges do; they reduce the demand. Is that what the Minister really wants to do? If he does, and if he is prepared to say so—since he suggested there were abuses—will he say amongst what section of the people demand is to be stifled. If he is satisfied, either now or at some time in the future, that this stifling of demand is not only amongst people who can least afford it, will he persist in his charges, or has he


no views on the matter? I am glad to see his eyes fixed with humility and diffidence on his knees, or whatever rests upon his knees.

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Member's photograph.

Dr. Stross: I am delighted to know that the Minister is paying attention to me. I ask him if he will change his mind if and when he is satisfied he should do, as indeed he will be soon by the storm of protest that will be aroused and brought home to him, if not by ourselves, by those sitting behind him, for he may remember that they, too, have constituents who lead humble and impoverished lives and are chronically sick? There are tuberculous patients among the constituents of hon. Members opposite, just as there are those who, by some genetic fault, are born with a weakness towards the diabetic state.
There are numbers of their constituents who live on clay soils and in wet areas, not all of them potters, miners and steelworkers, like mine, and who suffer from chronic coughs and must have their bottles of medicine, and those bottles of medicine do them a great deal of good and help them very greatly. There is a condition called pneumoconiosis, and many men suffering from it are still at work and receive no compensation, but they cough each and every winter, and the Minister ought to realise it.
The Government have embarked upon something which indeed is mean and cruel. It was not without reason that I interjected in the speech of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and I did it sincerely, because those of us who serve the public know how they suffer, although we ourselves are in good health, and I must say again that I congratulate the hon. Member on his rude and robust appearance after sitting up all night.
We know this Bill will have an effect in every part of the country. This Bill is bad, and everybody knows that we shall not support the Minister in the Committee stage, and that in the country we shall be preparing protest meetings, which we think are fully justified. If, by the Third Reading, I do not bring him

a million signatures, to show him what the people think about him, then it will be at least half a million.
It is not too much to ask the Government to give some thought to what they are doing. I care not about their political future; why should I? I have the right to plead on behalf of my constituents and for people throughout the country, and I say that, for the small sum of money proposed to be saved every year, this Bill is making a brutal and even stupid attack upon them.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, to leave out from "now," to the end of the Question, and to add:
upon this day six months.
Much of the discussion tonight has ranged around a comparison between this Bill and the one which I introduced to the House about a year ago. Indeed, the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), who made what I think will be generally regarded as the best speech from the other side of the House today—a speech in which, incidentally, he found it almost impossible to support the Bill at all—devoted the greater part of that speech to this argument. I thought that he was adequately answered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) but I must say a word or two more on the point.
There are three main differences between last year's Bill, and the circumstances in which it was introduced, and this Bill and the circumstances which prevail today. What we did then was to increase the total expenditure on the National Health Service, in the very year in which an increase of 4s. per week was given for every old age pensioner out of general taxation. The Budget of that year provided an increase of taxation of £170 million, and our proposals were framed against the background of that Budget, which increased social benefits to the tune of about £50 million and increased Income Tax in order to pay for it.
This Bill is introduced against a background in which improved pensions, such as the improvement is, are to be paid for out of contributions to the National Insurance Fund, and in which bonuses are given to Income Tax payers. Our


proposals were deliberately limited to the re-armament period: they were to come to an end in 1954; they were temporary adjustments in the Health Service to cover an emergency period. The most evil feature of this Bill is that it seeks to impose charges in perpetuity.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman says they were to come to an end in 1954. Why, then, was it necessary to provide by Section 5 (2) of the 1951 Act that they could be renewed from year to year afterwards by Order in Council?

Mr. Marquand: There was provision that one year extra might be necessary, and that was because it was not quite certain whether the re-armament period would be over within that year.
This Bill believes that charges are good in themselves. It does not recommend charges, as I did a year ago, as a distasteful measure. It recommends charges as something upon which the Minister almost congratulated himself. He certainly congratulated his colleagues on having the wisdom to accept the suggestions he made to them when he first announced his proposals to the House.
The character of the proposals this time is radically different from the character of the proposals we brought forward. We deliberately avoided imposing charges which would fall upon those who were sick or ill, or which would fall repeatedly, at short intervals, upon any class of persons. Those who have been interested in studying the speech that I made a year ago have not quoted any of the remarks I made on the subject of the charges which are now proposed in this Bill.
I dealt at length with the suggestion of a charge upon prescriptions and upon surgical appliances. I rejected those charges because they would fall repeatedly upon the sick and ill, and because they involved charges for treatment. I said again and again that the charges which were then introduced were charges for certain appliances and not for treatment. Having dealt with the prescription charges, and with the possibility of a charge for surgical appliances and other things, I said, at the conclusion of that section of my speech:
Let us hope that this explanation may prevent anyone in future from wanting to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 240.]

The only charge put forward in the Bill which I did not deliberately denounce in my speech a year ago is the charge for dental treatment. As I have already said, in an interruption I made earlier, the only reason I did not deal with such a charge was because it never entered my head that anyone could ever think of charging for dental treatment, and so framing the charge that it would discourage people from taking care of their teeth and encourage them to wait until their teeth were thoroughly rotten before going to the dentist.
I cannot imagine how the right hon. Gentleman thought of that charge. Nobody today has found anything to say in favour of it, not even hon. Members sitting behind the Minister. The foundation of the dental provisions within the National Health Service was the Report of the Teviot Committee. This is what that Committee said in its well-known report:
The greatest single step forward which, in our view, could be made at the present juncture, is the acceptance of the principle of a comprehensive service which, while, perhaps not wholly adequate, will be equally available to all who demand it and which will be paid for by the community as a whole.
The report went on:
We want to divorce dental health care from questions of means and thus begin to build up demand; then can come a steadier and longer process of increasing public enlightenment about dental health.
That report is associated with the name of the noble Lord who occupies a very important position in the National Liberal Party. I hope that followers of his, on the other side of the House, tonight will realise that this Bill, for which they are asked to vote, requires a complete departure from what he recommended during the war. The Minister of Health said, in his opening speech yesterday, that to impose a charge was not breaking faith with anybody. But the proposed charge for dental treatment is a deliberate retreat from the promise of a comprehensive service made by the Coalition Government in 1944.
The raising of the age of exemptions from the charge, and the freeing of examinations are, of course, improvements in a bad Measure. But, though they are improvements, the charge is still objectionable because it is a charge for treatment and, therefore, encourages neglect of dental health. I hope the hon.


Member, who is to reply, will be able to assure us that the previously existing position, whereby dentists could make every year three examinations of the teeth of persons under 21 years of age, will continue to prevail, and that they will not only be exempt from this charge but will continue to have that detailed care which their age demands.
As for the projected charge for prescriptions, it is an even more far-reaching breach of faith than the charge for dental treatment. It is a breach of contract to all who have contributed to National Health Insurance at any time between 1911 and 1948. The Liberal Party, in particular, must pay attention to this breach of contract with a service always associated with the name of the late Earl Lloyd George. It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to add that these charges are also a breach of the Government's Election pledges. We are becoming so used to this breach that it is almost bad form to refer to them any more.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), reminded the House, the Manifesto of the Conservative Party contained a pledge that
for the money now being spent we will provide better services.
How it can be a better service to charge people every time a tooth is filled, or to encourage them to wait until they have accumulated more than a pound's worth of damage to their teeth before they go to the dentist I cannot imagine.
The prescription charge—I attacked it a year ago and am free to attack it again—is monstrously inequitable and unfair unless it exempts completely the retirement pensioners, recipients of National Assistance, war pensioners, and children. The greatest single benefit of the National Health Service has been that it has given the poor for the first time the opportunity to secure a true family doctor service. The anxiety of the mother for the health of her children has at last been removed. Anywhere one like to go throughout the country one will find always, in every audience one cares to address, that that is the feature of the Health Service which appeals most to our people.
The children's need is even greater than that of the aged. There is no exemption for children from the prescription

charge provided by this Bill. Of course, if all these exemptions were made the levying of charges would be administratively impracticable, but even those exemptions that are now proposed, or those provisions for the relief of hardship, as it is called, and which are to be included, we understand, when the scheme is brought forward—even those, I predict, will be administratively unworkable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, has already dealt with the picture of the National Assistance Board receipients having to go to collect their pathetic shillings, but what about the people on the borderline of National Assistance—the people who are in the Bill entitled to National Assistance, but who pay these extra charges? They will be forced to go to the National Assistance Board.
They have not established their claim to assistance, so that each time they have to pay 1s. or have to reclaim it they have to go to the Assistance Board, and they have to subject themselves to a complete inquiry into their means and circumstances before they can claim their "bobs" back again from the Assistance Board. It is not a simple matter of going to the Post Office for them, and collecting the payment.
Still more difficult, and more serious, I think, will be the job of securing that the war pensioner gets free treatment for his Service disability to which he has been entitled for 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman said that he will automatically be repaid. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not be automatic, and there is no way of making it automatic. Someone must distinguish, first of all, somehow, whether the prescription involved was given for a war disability or for a disability not connected with war. How is he to distinguish in the case of pensioners—and there are thousands of them some tens of thousands, perhaps—who, perhaps, have bronchitis, emphysema, and similar conditions? Who will decide whether the prescription has been made out for a bad cold or for the pensionable disability? I could go on multiplying similar examples.
Naturally, the only people who can determine whether in such cases the shilling should be repaid are the Ministry of Pensions. I was advised when I looked


into this prescription charge two years ago that it would require the taking on on the staff of the Ministry of Pensions, in order to disentangle this sort of problem, at least a dozen more doctors and 100 more officials. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is letting himself in for. I tell him now that this system he has devised will end in a mess and a muddle. It will cause unhappiness and ill health to the aged and to children, and to the war-disabled pensioners that will mean form filling and re-examination by Ministry of Pensions doctors.

Mr. Powell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he explain, if it is impracticable for the National Assistance Board to deal with payments of prescriptions, why he himself in the Act of 1951 specifically so provided—in Section 4 (2)?

Mr. Marquand: I suppose I could not have been speaking loudly enough. Apparently, I did not make myself clear. I have been talking about the practicability of providing for the war pensioners. Surely, it is not the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that war pensioners should go to the National Assistance Board? Of course, it is not.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has referred in general to the difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of the National Assistance Board in dealing with these payments for prescriptions—this miserable shilling. Well, the miserable shilling of the National Assistance Board is in his own Act.

Mr. Marquand: What is in that Act is the possibility that a person requiring a set of dentures which he might want once in five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "And paying a prescription."] No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman is talking about an Act of Parliament for which I was responsible, I suppose. [HON. MEMBERS: Yes."] What is in that Act is the occasional charge which might fall at intervals of a number of years for fairly substantial sums—

Mr. Powell: Read it.

Mr. Marquand: No, I have undertaken to stop at—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Suppose it is true? Suppose that I

am saying that something for which I was responsible—though I do not think I was—is impracticable? Does that make it any more desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to embark upon this uncertain sea? Is there any sense in doing a stupid thing because your opponents might once have thought the thing was practicable until they examined it and found it was impracticable? It is a ridiculous interruption for the hon. Member to make in an attempt to try to throw me out of my stride, and I do not intend to be thrown out of it. I say that this will end in a mess and a muddle for the reasons which I have given, perhaps a little too speedily, in order to give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who wants to have 35 minutes in which to wind up the debate.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, has suggested, I say that it will subject the most humane doctors to a constant temptation to protect their patients against repeated charges by prescribing larger quantities than are immediately necessary. I said last year, as I have reminded the House, that the proposals which I introduced at that time were distasteful measures; but these are hateful, they are malign measures, they are thoroughly impracticable, they are completely undesirable and inhumane.
The more one examines and studies the National Health Service, the closer the acquaintance of any individual with the detailed administration and work of the service becomes, the clearer it grows that a comprehensive Health Service without charges for treatment is not a visionary dream at all. It is the only sensible and satisfactory form of service wherewith to wage an effective battle against disease and ill-health.
There is no place in a real National Health Service for threats of imprisonment and fines such as have been introduced in this Measure. It is because these charges are impracticable that they are likely to encourage abuse and evasion. We have introduced into our noble service the threat to the beneficiaries that they may be imprisoned or fined, and that disgraceful feature of the Bill characterises the whole of it.
The National Health Service has set out to develop to the utmost of its power the great skill of the great healers of this


country. It has set out to develop and to encourage the availability in all parts of our land of surgeons and consultants of all kinds. The numbers have been increased all over the Provinces and no longer do outlying parts of the country rely wholly upon London for these services. Every time that new discoveries of importance have been made by the scientists working in their laboratories, they have been eagerly seized upon by the service, and those new discoveries, which are costly and expensive, as we have heard tonight, and the skill of these great consultants, have been made freely available, not on the basis of wealth but on the basis of the need of the patient.
We say that the National Health Service makes these available on the basis not of wealth but of need. The service is the living embodiment of the principles on which Socialism is founded. It is based on the creed, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. That is why my hon. Friends behind me are so passionate with indignation when they see proposals like those contained in this Bill.
Hon. Members opposite are making a mistake if they think there is not complete unanimity in this party on this subject. There is complete unanimity, for we regard the National Health Service as one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government during its period of office. I do not think it was seriously impaired by the small adjustments made a year ago. To borrow a phrase from the Government, we do not intend to let the essential fabric of the Health Service be destroyed by the Government. If the Minister of Health, having listened to the criticism of the Bill and not having heard any prise whatever in its favour, persists with the Bill, we intend to oppose it and to fight it at every stage with all the power, vigour and skill that we possibly can.

12.32 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): We have had a most interesting debate, which has been conducted with great good feeling from every quarter of the House. My first duty is to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) on an excellent maiden speech. I think the House will agree with me that it was a most enjoyable speech, delivered with great sincerity, and it had what the House likes so much, a number of light touches about it.
The attitude of the Opposition rather puzzles me, because it was the late Government which placed a ceiling on the expenditure of the Health Service for reasons which apparently appeared to them to be sound. Now when we have been taking steps to keep within this ceiling, they make most violent protests and level most unwarranted charges against us. It seems to be somewhat unreasonable, because there is no logic in supporting a policy when in power and in denouncing it shortly afterwards when in opposition. That is the attitude which the party opposite has adopted in this debate.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Commander Galbraith: No, I will not give way.
In addition there ran through many of the speeches a suggestion that in this Bill the Government are doing something which is almost revolutionary, which had never previously even been thought of. But that is not the case. I want, therefore, to examine some of the facts which preceded the decision of the Labour Government to impose a ceiling on the expenditure of this service.
I want to remind the House that when we discussed the White Paper in 1944 the estimated annual cost to the Exchequer of the Service was £54½ million. When the Bill was introduced the figure had risen to £131 million. In the first nine months of the Service, from the 5th July, 1948, until the 31st March, 1949, it was £198 million. That was an annual rate of £264 million. For the year 1949–50 it rose to £354 million, in 1950–51 to £370 million and by 1951–52 the cost had risen to such a height that the Government imposed their ceiling of £400 million.
It was the present Leader of the Opposition himself who, on 24th October, 1949, announced the proposed maximum charge of a shilling on prescriptions issued


under the National Health Service. Sir Stafford Cripps said, on 14th March, 1950:
We must bring expenditure on health into its proper proportion with food subsidies, education and all the other matters that vitally concern the safety and happiness of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 938.]
Accordingly, the Estimates for 1950–51 were to be regarded as a ceiling. In his 1950 Budget speech Sir Stafford Cripps repeated his ceiling policy in relation to the National Health Service Estimates, and at that time the Estimate totalled £392 million.
That brings me to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and his Budget speech of 10th April last year when he said:
We did not feel that, in present circumstances, and with all the other burdens which have to be carried, it was reasonable to put upon the Exchequer, and, therefore, on the taxpayer, another £30 million. We decided that the Health Service estimates must be brought within a total of £400 million.
A little later, as reported in the next column, he used these words:
… it was also necessary against the background of our general financial position, … that some charges should be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 851–2.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day carried his proposals, and he could not have done that wthout the consent and approval and support of the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members who now sit on the benches opposite.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. May I ask for your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to answer the points raised or whether a prepared speech is to be the sole answer to the debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must know that that is not a point of order. I wish hon. Members would not raise as points of order things which they know are not points of order.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said that it was not a point of order, and therefore nothing further can arise from it.

Mr. Manuel: May I ask for your Ruling?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot have my Ruling discussed.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are now ruling that an hon. Member cannot ask you for advice about a point of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. My point was that these points of order are being a bused—

Mr. Manuel: By whom?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: By hon. Members who get up and put points of order in order to bring in a debating point when they are not points of order at all. I am not going to have them.

Commander Galbraith: I have been speaking for only four minutes, and if the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is patient I promise I will answer the points raised in the debate. I want first to try to get the background, against which these charges are being imposed, into its right place.
I want to point out how very different is the financial position today from what it was then. May I remind the House that in the first quarter of 1951 we added £164 million to our gold and dollar reserves and that the total at the end of that quarter amounted to £1,342 million. In the last quarter of 1951, which is the latest quarter for which we have complete figures, instead of gaining we had a loss of £353 million, bringing our total down to £834 million. Last year's Budget was framed against a background of a surplus in our United Kingdom payments for 1950 of £221 million.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. Is there any reference in the Bill to the gold reserves?

Commander Galbraith: The position is now completely different because instead of a surplus in 1951 we had a deficit of almost £500 million.
Within these last two days our problems have been made more difficult by the arbitration award to the general practitioners. I do not propose to say more than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already said on that sub


ject. I would, however, remind the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that that question was sent to arbitration by the Labour Government he supported and that this Government have inherited an obligation to honour the award when it was made.
I am certain that at least the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) agrees that the House would not suggest that this Government should break an agreement made by its predecessors. We view with grave concern this heavy liability which we have inherited from the previous Government, and which is due to their conduct of the negotiations.

Mr. McNeil: I am not very clear on the drift of the argument. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that at this stage he is repudiating the Spens Report?

Commander Galbraith: No, I am pointing out that we have to honour the agreement made by the last Government.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Bevan: The Minister has given way. On a point of explanation—

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: On a point of order. Could you give your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on whether a point of explanation is a point of order, or what it is?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not notice that the Minister had given way. As he has given way, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask a question.

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members with a little experience of the House know that interventions frequently take place during speeches. I wanted to ask—[Interruption.] Shut up.

Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling you to shut up, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think he did, but he made a mistake because I had not spoken.

Mr. Bevan: I think I indicated the direction of my rebuke. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what

were the terms of reference to the arbitrator, so that we may judge the extent to which the Government are bound?

Commander Galbraith: I understand that the terms of reference are known to the right hon. Gentleman and were given by the previous Government. I think I should have started by saying that we are having a lively debate. [Interruption.] I hope the House will allow me to try to deal with the various points which have been made. There is no real point of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's remark.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Commander Galbraith: He will be glad to know that the terms of reference were settled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) when he was Minister of Health.—[HON. MEMBERS: "What were they?"] If the right hon. Gentleman would like to see them, I will pass them over after the debate.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless the Member who has the Floor gives way, it is out of order for another hon. Member to stand.

Mr. Bevan: Now, Sir, I rise to a point of order, which was raised by my hon. Friend. It is customary for Ministers to be allowed to read speeches, but not to read them in such a way as to frustrate the purposes of debate. In my respectful submission, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has displayed his incapacity and now is compelled to read from his brief.

Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the hon. and gallant Gentleman reading anything yet.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Commander Galbraith: I have listened to practically the whole of the debate. I have heard denuciations of the Government's proposals, but I have heard few suggestions as to what should be substituted for them.
I want to deal for a moment or two with the shilling charge for prescriptions. My right hon. Friend, when making his


opening speech, quoted the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the "cascades of medicine which were pouring down British throats." I want to continue the next two lines of the quotation. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I wish I could believe that its efficacy was equal to the credulity with which it is being swallowed.
I do not wonder for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman shuddered because there had been a very great increase in the number and the value of prescriptions since the introduction of the National Health Service? As the House will see from the figures I am about to give, the cascade has gone on since that time.
In 1947, the number of prescriptions prescribed under the National Health Scheme was 75 million. That was 3¾ per head of the insured population, and the average cost was 1s. 9d. In the three calendar years under the National Health Service—1949, 1950 and 1951—the numbers had risen from 220 million to 237 million and then to 250 million. To the right hon. Lady I say that the figures were quoted wrongly, and I am trying to put the House in possession of the correct facts.

Dr. Summerskill: I have not quoted one figure.

Mr. Marquand: If we are to have all the facts, it would be as well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to add that under the Health Service are included the old and the children, who were not included under National Health Insurance.

Commander Galbraith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can wait until I continue, and not jump in at the first moment when he thinks he is being clever.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me which figure I quoted? I have not quoted one figure.

Commander Galbraith: The numbers—

Dr. Summerskill: May I have the figure?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Commander Galbraith: —have risen to 5⅓rd and 5⅔rd prescriptions per head, and the costs have been 3s. 2d., 3s. 5d. and 3s. 10d. The right hon. Lady quoted the figure of 3s. 8d. as the average cost per head.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes.

Commander Galbraith: I have corrected her and told her that the correct figure is 3s. 10d.

Dr. Summerskill: May I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must repeat again the well-known rule that unless the hon. Member who has possession of the Floor gives way, it is out of order for other Members to remain standing.

Commander Galbraith: I want to carry that a little bit further—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, this is a very bad end to a good debate. I must ask hon. Members to keep order for the reply of the Minister.

Mr. John Paton: On a point of order. Is it not the established practice of this House that when one hon. Member makes specific reference to another hon. Member, quoting and correcting something which the other hon. Member has said, then the hon. Member should give way if the other wishes to reply?

Mr. Speaker: Generally that is a convenient course but when, as in this case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking against the clock, with a certain amount to say, it is often not possible to give way on every occasion.

Commander Galbraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the right hon. Lady of a speech which she made—[Interruption.]

Dr. Summerskill: I want to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He said that I quoted a number of prescriptions. He will find from HANSARD tomorrow that I did not quote any number at all. Secondly, he said that I said that the average price of prescriptions was 3s. 8d. He will find in HANSARD tomorrow that I quoted from the speech made by the Minister of Health to the Lincoln Division of the B.M.A. in February, when the Minister of Health


told the members that the average price was 3s. 8d.

Commander Galbraith: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Now perhaps I shall not be wrong this time because I propose to quote the right hon. Lady from "The Times" of 26th October, 1949. Speaking at a meeting the previous night to the local Labour Party at Fulham, she said:
Medical prescriptions have been costing the National Health Service 2s. 11d. …

Dr. Summerskill: In 1949.

Commander Galbraith: Yes. That, of course, was not the full total. That was the English figure and not the United Kingdom figure. She also said that:
At a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party that morning Mr. Bevan endorsed the new imposition of Is, for every medical prescription, and Mr. Bevan had also said that he felt that the Health Service was being abused by many people and that doctors were complaining that their surgeries were absolutely packed out. …

Dr. Summerskill: rose—

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Lady let me finish the quotation:
… were absolutely packed out by people who were there with very minor complaints.
I should like the House to compare that with the impression which we got from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale today.
It was against that background that the Labour Government decided to insert a provision in the 1949 Act which would permit them to impose a charge on prescriptions. That was not imposed, of course, on the plea that other savings were being achieved, but, looking to the future, and knowing that the trend of events in their policy must be that charges would become inevitable, they put it in the Act. Sir Stafford Cripps said on 18th April that the power to charge still, of course, remainded, so that it could be used later, if needed. Most unfortunately, that time has now come.
What are the main objections which have been made today? It has been stressed time and again that people who suffer from chronic maladies such as diabetes and asthma have to obtain medicine frequently, and, therefore, will be harder hit than others. There is

nothing whatsoever to prevent the doctor, if he sees fit, to prescribe sufficient of the necessary drugs to last weeks or even months.
Then, there was the objection stated in regard to the burden which it is suggested will be placed on those unable to afford the higher charge. It has been said already, and was stated by the Minister in opening the debate, that it is provided in the Bill itself, in Clause 6 (2), that persons in receipt of assistance will be able to claim repayment on production at the offices at which they draw their assistance of the receipt which they will receive on request from their chemist or doctor; and that war pensioners will be able to reclaim the charge which they have incurred by reason of their war disabilities.
I have to repeat these things because hon. Members opposite evidently have not grasped them yet. Similarly, those who are not receiving assistance but who are unable to meet the charge, may apply for relief to the National Assistance Board.
During the debate, we have been pressed to make arrangements for exemption from the charge, and not only to make refunds. Hon. Members have reminded the House that the Labour Government promised exemptions when they originally intimated their intention to levy a charge. I do not happen to know what passed in the counsels of the Labour Party, apart from the manoeuvres subsequently revealed in the Chamber by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, but anyone who studies the problem will be led to guess, and it has been confirmed by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, that difficulty in providing exemption led to the fate of their proposal.
It certainly appeared to us that no exemption scheme could be administered with any degree of equality unless the doctors were saddled with an unfair responsibility for identifying which patient would be in the exempted category and which would not. Instead of turning up a blind alley, we have set up a procedure which makes a refund as easy as possible for those whose need is greatest.
The right hon. Lady asked if we had gone back to the 19th century. May I assure her and the right hon. Gentleman


who has just spoken, as, in fact, they have been assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), that we have not gone back to the 19th century, but that we have only gone back to the National Health Service Act, 1951, in which the Labour Government gave the power to the National Assistance Board to refund the shilling charge, and is contained in Clause 4 (2) of the Bill? The House will also remember that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, told us earlier today that all question of making the charge had been abandoned long before that date.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East called attention to the fact that those insured under the old National Health Insurance schemes—that was 23 million of the population in July, 1948—had now, for the first time, been charged for medicine. In that connection I cannot do better than refer them to the speech made by their right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale on 9th December, 1949, reported in c. 2261–2 of HANSARD, where they will find the complete answer to their questions.
The right hon. Member for Greenock spoke about the difficulties of collecting the charge in rural areas. I agree that there are difficulties, and I sympathise with those dispensing doctors who are now being asked to undertake some additional work; but I cannot understand any argument that the doctors are being made tax collectors, and that the doctor-patient relationship is being undermined.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order. I admit that I have not been in this House as long as some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen present, but the procedure this evening is unprecedented in my experience, in that on a major issue of national importance a whole speech has been read from a brief, and it is not a reply to the debate. May I respectfully appeal to you, Sir, for a Ruling on this unprecedented manner of reading direct from a manuscript from A to Z, without a reference to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: It is, of course, in general, out of order to read speeches in the House, but I have noticed Minis-

ters frequently resort to the practice, on both sides of the House. The polite euphemism used in describing a Minister's speech is that he uses "copious notes."

Mr. Davies: Further to that point of order—[Interruption]—if Mr. Speaker gives me the right of addressing a point of order to him, I listen to Mr. Speaker and not to irresponsible Members opposite. Mr. Speaker, could you, for my guidance, tell me if there is any method by which back benchers on this side of the House can protect themselves from this new kind of debating introduced by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order. Would it not have met the general convenience of the House better if this speech had been circulated?

Mr. Speaker: I have expressed myself already on the question of reading speeches, and I have nothing to add to that. As to the earlier point of order, that the speech was not an answer to the debate: that must, of course, remain a matter of opinion; it is not a matter for me.

Commander Galbraith: It is most unfortunate that these interruptions should prevent me from answering the debate, which it was my intention to do, and which I was endeavouring to do. It now happens that so much time has been taken up in that way—and taken up by Members who have attended almost none of this debate—that I shall have to draw to a conclusion as time is now short.
There are two points on which I wish to say a word before I resume my seat. The first of these is the argument that these charges have no relation whatsoever to our general economic difficulty, and, in particular, to our balance of payments. Every hon. Member must know that our basic problem today is to stimulate our export trade, and they must appreciate that any reduction of home demand is bound to be a factor operating in the right direction. That is no less true if the resources set free by any particular reduction in demand do not themselves contribute directly to our exports. We have to look at the economy of the nation as a whole.
The relevance of these Health Service charges are that, if people have to pay now for something which they received free before, to that extent their purchasing power for other goods and services—[Interruption]. There has been an allegation, which has been made so frequently from the benches opposite, that here is a wicked Tory Party seizing the chance to destroy the great Socialist conception. It was not a Socialist conception. It was the conception of the Coalition Government in 1944, fortified by a predominantly Conservative House of Commons.
If these modest charges on marginal items are held to destroy that conception, then the guilt is no more ours than it belongs to Gentlemen opposite, who, at least, let me say, had the courage to bow to realities a year ago. I submit that these charges proposed in this Bill are a more sensible way of meeting the critical situation which now faces us than by risking the collapse of more vital parts of the Health Service.
To my mind, and I am certain to the minds of the great majority of the people of this country, these charges are greatly to be preferred to any inroads on the essential features of the National Health Service, comprising, as they do, the services of the family doctor, together with specialists and hospital services, when they are necessary. So long as we can

preserve these, without financial impediment for their use, then we have not, in my judgment, betrayed the high ideals of the National Health Service which was founded in 1944.

I would, therefore, claim that judged by their actions and statements when in office, the objections to the Bill, put forward by the Opposition today, have no foundation whatever and the charges they have levelled against this Government reveal, once again, to the nation, their complete lack of any responsibility in opposition. Therefore, it is with every confidence that I now ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

1.10 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division. Brigadier MACKESON and Mr. T. G. D. GALBRAITH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 279.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[1.13 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braine, B. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
De la Bère, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Deedes, W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Donner, P. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bullard, D. G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Drewe, C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baldwin, A. E.
Butcher, H. W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Banks, Col. C.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Duthie, W. S.


Barber, A. P. L.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Carson, Hon. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Baxter, A. B.
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Erroll, F. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fell, A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Birch, Nigel
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fort, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Cranborne, Viscount
Foster, John


Black, C. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Han. H. F. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bossom, A. C.
Crouch, R. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Gage, C. H.




Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G (King's Norton)
Robertson, Sir David


Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson-Brown, W.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Godber, J. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McAdden, S J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McCallum, Major D.
Scott, R. Donald


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, William


Hare, Hon. J. H.
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclay, Hon. John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hay, John
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Heath, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hicks-Beach, Major W. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marples, A. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus
Storey, S.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hollis, M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Studholme, H. G.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mellor, Sir John
Summers, G. S.


Hope, Lord John
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hopkinson, Henry
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Horobin, I. M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L (Hereford)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmer
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hurd, A. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Touche, G. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Jennings, R.
Osborne, C.
Vosper, D. F.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pilkington, Copt R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wellwood, W.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Leather, E. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wills, G.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt Hon A. T.
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lindsay, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Linstead, H. N.
Renton, D. L. M.



Llewellyn, D. T.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Brigadier Mackeson and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Boardman, H.


Adams, Richard
Ballenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Albu, A. H.
Bence, C. R.
Bowden, H. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowles, F. G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Brockway, A. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Beswick, F.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Ayles, W. H.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Baird, J.
Blenkinsop, A.
Burke, W. A.


Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.
Burton, Miss F. E.







Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camiachie)


Chapman, W. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Schofield, S (Barnsley)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Donnelly, D. L.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Sparks, J. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.



McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas George (Cardiff)


Field, W. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fienburgh, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thurtle, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Tomney, F.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Wade, D. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Glanville, James
Mort, D. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Brien, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Grimond, J.
Orbach, M.
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, T.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hardy, E. A.
Panned, Charles
Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hargreaves, A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hastings, S.
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Paten, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pearson, A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Peart, T. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wyatt, W. L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. F.


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.



Holman, P.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Holt, A. F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Wilkins and


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Mr. Horace Holmes


Bill read a Second Time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."—[Mr. Butcher.]

The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 273.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[1.26 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Erroll, F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Anstruther-Gray Maj W. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lindsay, Martin


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Linstead, H. N.


Astor, Hon J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Baker, P. A. D.
Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt. Col. J. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Barber, A. P. L.
Gage, C. H.
Low, A. R. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
McAdden, S. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
McCallum, Major D.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Godber, J. B.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gough, C. F. H.
McKibbin, A. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gower, H. R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Birch, Nigel
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Hon. John


Bishop, F. P.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclean, Fitzroy


Black, C. W.
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W (Horncastle)


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)
Harris, Reader (Heaton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hay, John
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maude, Angus


Bullard, D. G.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Burden, F. F. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John


Butcher, H. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshewe)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hichingbrooke, Viscount
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Carson, Hon. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwick)
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cole, Norman
Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hopkinson, Henry
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harobin, I. M.
Oakshott, H. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.


Canborne, Viscount
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun)
Peto, Brig C. H. M.


De la Bère, R.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Donner, P. W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profume, J. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Drewe, C.
Kaberry, D.
Rayner Brig. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Redmayne, M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Duthie, W. S.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.




Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Robertson, Sir David
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Robson-Brown, W.
Stevens, G. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Roper, Sir Harold
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wade, D. W.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Russell, R. S.
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Studholme, H. G.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Summers, G. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Scott, R. Donald
Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wellwood, W.


Shepherd, William
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Teeling, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, G.


Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Snadden, W. McN
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Soames, Capt. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John
Brigadier Mackeson and


Speir, R. M.
Touche, G. C.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Deer, G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Adams, Richard
Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Albu, A. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Donnelly, D. L.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Janner, B.


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Edelman, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Baird, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bence, C. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Keenan, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Ewart, R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
King, Dr. H. M.


Beswick, F.
Field, W. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. (Ebbw Vale)
Fienburgh, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bing, G. H. C.
Finch, H. J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Lewis, Arthur


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacColl, J. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gibson, C. W.
McInnes, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Glanville, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Chapman, W. D.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Clunie, J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, F.


Collick, P. H.
Hannan, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, T. F.
Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.


Daines, P.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Houghton, Douglas
Nally, W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Brien, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Hector, (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.







Oliver, G. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Orbach, M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Usborne, H. C.


Oswald, T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Viant, S. P.


Padley, W. E.
Short, E. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Pannell, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Pargiter, G. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Parker, J.
Slater, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Paton, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
West, D. G.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Peart, T. F.
Snow, J. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Popplewell, E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.


Porter, G.
Sparks, J. A.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Steele, T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Proctor, W. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Pryde, D. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, David (Neath)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reeves, J.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Richards, R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wyatt, W. L.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest



Ross, William
Timmons, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Royle, C.
Tomney, F.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Turner-Samuels, M.

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(Queen's Recommendation signified.)

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the making and recovery of charges in respect of services provided under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys so provided;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

1.37 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: Since the Bill was published, a number of very important changes have been announced by the Government, which shows that the Bill was hastily considered and that the Government have had to retreat under

pressure from their own followers. This has affected the incidence of the Financial Resolution quite considerably, because the amount of money to be saved by the Bill is even less predictable than it was formerly.
However, an additional event has occurred which has even more substantially modified the situation. As hon. Members will recall, the Minister announced today that as a consequence of an arbitration award, the Government have found themselves compelled to retreat from a principle that was adopted by three Chancellors of the Exchequer: that the ceiling of £400 million is no longer operable, because an arbitration has occurred outside the House of Commons.
I was disappointed, as, I am sure, the House was, that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who wound up the debate on Second Reading for the Government, found it difficult to interrupt his prose in order to provide the House with one of the most significant pieces of evidence to enable us to form a judgment as to the significance of the Financial Resolution and the moneys that are to be saved.
Since then I have armed myself with the terms of reference that the arbitrator


received from the late Administration. I think that the House ought to know these terms of reference before we, apparently frivolously, decide to throw away £40 million, and before we decide to accept an award which may have most dangerous repercussions upon wage negotiations now taking place all over the country.
I understand now why the Government did not read out the full terms of reference, because the late Administration did, in fact, safeguard themselves in constitutional form. Therefore, we are still in charge of the situation. I will read out the terms of reference:
To determine the size of a Central Pool, after taking account of the remuneration from all other sources received by general practitioners, in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Spens Committee, having regard to the change in the value of money since 1939, to the increases which have taken place in incomes in other professions, and to all other relevant factors. The Ministers and the Committee …
that is, the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association—
… have agreed to treat the award of the Adjudicator as binding, subject to the overriding authority of Parliament and to a satisfactory distribution scheme being agreed by the parties.
As I understand—and, indeed, I should have lamented it if it had not been the case—the late Administration could not possibly have bound Parliament in any manner without Parliament having the right to consider the matter. Parliament is not bound; neither would the late Administration have been bound.

The Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Money Resolution. Perhaps I may be allowed to say what I think, though I may be wrong. All that we are authorising is the payment of moneys in connection with the National Assistance Act, 1946. The doctors are not paid under this Money Resolution.

Mr. Bevan: But the Minister, in making his speech today, said that the ceiling would be exceeded. But he could not tell the amount by which it would be exceeded because he could not tell what would be received by the Exchequer from the charges imposed by this Bill. There-

fore, we have two competitors now for moneys received from Parliament. The patients themselves will be charged and the general practitioners will be trying to exceed the ceiling as much as possible under this provision.
I know how narrow Money Resolutions are drawn. I am not suggesting that this is the best opportunity for discussing this exceedingly important matter, but I say that Parliament ought to have an opportunity to discuss it.

The Chairman: That may be, but they do not get it under this Money Resolution.

Mr. Bevan: This matter was referred to at considerable length. It is specifically a money matter.

The Chairman: Yes. It may have been referred to on the Second Reading, but it is not covered by the Money Resolution. It is a very narrow one, if the right hon. Gentleman will examine it.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: May I suggest to you, Sir Charles, that the amount of money which has to be found by way of National Assistance is directly linked to the cost of the service? As I understood my right hon. Friend, he was trying to discover what is the cost of the service. Until we discover that, we cannot discover the sum we are voting because we do not know the proportion which will fall on National Assistance.

The Chairman: Only a limited amount can come from National Assistance. I am not in a position to tell the right hon. Gentleman. I am only here to carry out the Rules of Order, and it is clear that this Money Resolution covers payments that will arise out of the increased money coming out of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and that is all with which we are here concerned.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: I am not pressing the question on you, Sir Charles. You could not possibly be expected to know how much it is. The whole difficulty is that neither does the Administration. Surely it is in order, on a Money Resolution, to try to probe what it is that might be saved and what might be spent? If that is not appropriate on a Money Resolution, what is?

The Chairman: That is true, and the right hon. Gentleman can refer to what the increased charges will be, but not give the whole picture. I think my Ruling was quite correct. I am sorry, but I did not draw the Money Resolution, which is very narrow.

Mr. Bevan: It was always the general practice in the past to draw Money Resolutions so narrowly or widely that there was always the question of discussing them to provide hon. Members with an opportunity of having a proper discussion in the financial Clauses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and I remember taking part in many discussions about this, and there was a time when Parliament itself found itself frustrated from effective discussion because draftsmen had become so clever in drawing Money Resolutions that we in the House of Commons could not discuss money.
Therefore, today, what I am seeking to find out from the Administration is this. Will the Minister of Health inform us whether he considers that the Administration has been bound by the statement he has made, and will he give us an opportunity, if not today, at some early date, of discussing this most significant decision before an outside body can appropriate large sums of money from helpless Parliaments?

Mr. Crookshank: If I might answer the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry he thought that this was a narrow Resolution. I think that, for the purposes with which it is concerned, that is, this Bill, it really could hardly be wider, because it has been the settled policy of this Government, as I think I can properly say it was of its predecessors and of all Governments in recent times, to draw Money Resolutions as wide, rather than as narrow, as possible. I think it very likely that, if the right hon. Gentleman looks back, he will find that he and I fought a battle in the interests of the House as a whole. Money Resolutions are always confined to the Bill to which they are attached.
The point which the right hon. Gentleman raised about adjudication, of course, has nothing at all in the world to do with this Bill. In a Second Reading debate, we have a general discussion, and I went out of my way—and the right hon. Gentleman nodded with approval—to ex-

plain the relevance of the adjudication on what is called the ceiling, but this Bill has nothing to do with that, or the ceiling or anything of that kind. What it has to do with is making further provision for making a recovery of charges and—

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me, it was advanced as one of the justifications for the Bill that it was necessary to have the charges so as to keep within the ceiling.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but the ceiling does not appear in the Bill or the Money Resolution. It is in the framework within which the Bill was introduced, and, therefore, any discussion of the ceiling and the £400 million is quite outside the scope of this Money Resolution. It should, in my view, on a proper occasion, be discussed, but this Resolution, for the purpose with which it is concerned, could hardly be wider.
It authorises, under paragraph (a), the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase that may be necessary as a result of this Bill in payments which are made under previous Acts dealing with National Assistance. All that it means in common terms is that, if there are any demands made on the National Assistance Board as a result of this Bill, or any possible hardships, and all the rest of it, those moneys can, as a result of this Money Resolution and the consequential Clause in the Bill, be paid out. It leaves quite at large how much this would be. That is the paying out.
On the other hand, the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister under this Bill merely refers to the result of the charges which will be collected by the hospitals—the prescription charges to hospital outpatients and charges for hospital appliances—because those would be incoming cash transactions, and it is therefore necessary to have authority to receive them and pay them into the Exchequer. There again, that leaves quite at large what the charges would be or what they are.
If there is a charge and it is necessary to have recourse to the National Assisance Board, by this Money Resolution the Board can pay out whatever is authorised. Whereas, if charges are made, then it is legal and proper for the


money received from those charges—again leaving quite at large what the charges should be and how much they are—to be paid into the Exchequer. Dealing with this side of the problem, which is all this Bill deals with, and not with the wider issues which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I do not think one could have put it in any wider form. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will see that we have done our best to carry out what has been the recent practice of the House to enable these things to be discussed.

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will find that it makes provision for deductions of amounts of money to be paid by regional hospital boards and executive councils as a consequence of the operation of the provisions of the Bill, but the amount to be paid to executive councils will, naturally, be substantially increased in virtue of the increased capitation arising from the award. Therefore, we are directly involved in those payments.
It is not merely providing payments from money granted by Parliament or the National Assistance Board. It also makes provision for reductions of payments to hospital management committees and executive councils in respect of charges which will have to be collected by those in contract with executive councils and regional hospital boards, and the general practitioners are in contract with the executive councils.

The Chairman: I do not think that that comes under the Money Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is no use saying, "Yes." Let me explain the point. This Money Resolution does two things. Under paragraph (a) it makes good the increased money that will have to come out of the National Assistance Board. Under paragraph (b) it only authorises the Minister or the Secretary of State to pay the Exchequer the money they received. It does not authorise them to receive it; that will have to be done under regulation.
The Resolution is very narrow. It is wide to this extent, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that if the Bill is amended in Committee—there is ample opportunity for that, but at the present time under Clause 6 it concerns only the National Assistance Act—other Acts

may be added; but they are not there now, and that is the only increase in charges that we can talk about on this Resolution.

Mr. Bevan: With great respect, Sir Charles, if you had permitted me to conclude my point, I was about to say that under Clause 6 (6) of the Bill
Regulations made under the principal Act or this Act providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of any services"—
note, any services—
may provide for the reduction of the sums which would otherwise be payable by a Regional Hospital Board, Hospital Management Committee, Board of Management, Board of Governors, or Executive Council to persons by whom those services are provided by the amount of the charges authorised by the regulations in respect of those services.
The Minister today—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Bill, which has been given a Second Reading by the House. If he will refer to the Money Resolution and look at the last two lines of paragraph (b), with regard to the point he has been reading about, he will see that all the Money Resolution authorises is that the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State shall pay that money into the Exchequer. That is all we can deal with as regards Clause 6.

Mr. Bevan: Regulations may be made, and, in fact, the Minister himself intimated his difficulty today in respect of doctors in rural areas where the 1s. prescription is one of great difficulty.

The Chairman: I quite agree that Regulations can be made, but the Money Resolution does not deal with them at all.

Mr. Bevan: But the amount of money to be collected or saved by the Regulation is affected by the Money Resolution. I have spoken to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee since I made my statement today and there is general anxiety about the propriety of the procedure, by which this very large sum of money is being appropriated from us. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance—

The Chairman: That is just where the right hon. Gentleman and I are at cross-purposes. All we can talk about on the Money Resolution is what is done with the money when it is received.

Mr. Bevan: Will you, Sir Charles, permit me to finish my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, then. We will go on for a long time. All I want to ask—

Hon. Members: Oh—

The Chairman: Order. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no physical steps will be taken by the Government to implement the adjudication until the House has considered the matter?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Crookshank: I do not know whether I have to answer these questions or not. I understood from you, Sir Charles, that references of that kind were out of order. I obey the Rules of Order and I understood that that was the position. If it is in order, I will say what I have to say, otherwise it is not possible for me to do it.

The Chairman: I have been trying my best for the last half-an-hour to explain to the Committee what is in order and what is not. It is perfectly simple. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was going beyond the Money Resolution, and I told him so several times.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps, Sir Charles, I can put the question another way to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give the answer we all know he is anxious to give to the Committee. I think the whole Committee was grateful to you for reading the Resolution because, obviously, the words on it had not impressed themselves on the mind of the Minister of Health, when he came to reply. Had he glanced at the Motion in the name of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he would have seen there are two points.
One is paragraph (a) and the other is paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) deals with the sums which are to be expended. Therefore, there will be no gain in regard to these sums and the country will be the poorer by the paying out of them. The amount in paragraph (b) consists of the sums which the right hon. Gentleman would pay to the Exchequer. If he looks at Clause 6 (6) of the Bill, he will see

he can make Regulations in order that the internal payments in the Service are not paid into the Exchequer at all.

The Chairman: That is true, but that is what I was pointing out. It has nothing to do with the Money Resolution, although it is in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member was in order in the first part of his speech, but beyond that we cannot go.

Mr. Bing: I was trying to eliminate from the minds of the Committee any of these sort of points which would be outside our ambit to consider. The point which I wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this: What is the sum which is to be paid into the Exchequer? This sum can be arrived at in a simple mathematical way, and is the sum which, if added to the ceiling of £400 million, ought to be equivalent to the total cost of the service, because otherwise, of course, there is no point in our enacting this Measure at all, or in our passing this Money Resolution.
The payments into the Exchequer must be sufficient to offset any additional cost of the service and to bring the total cost of the service down to £400. [HON. MEMBERS: "£400 million."] Down to £4. [HON. MEMBERS: "£400 million."] I am so sorry. Of course, I should have said £400 million, but I was anticipating the sum which hon. Gentlemen opposite would devote to the Health Service next year.

2.0 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he cannot discuss that, and that he is out of order.

Mr. Bing: I should not have anticipated so, Sir Charles. However, I hope that I have put the matter in such a way that the right hon. Gentleman will be in order in replying, and be able to reply.
This sum must be equivalent to the difference between the cost of the Health Service and £400 million less the sum which is to be expended under paragraph (a). Therefore, the Committee ought to be given two simple sums. What sum of money does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate receiving under paragraph (a), and what sum of money does he anticipate paying into the Exchequer under paragraph (b)? That is the purpose of


the Resolution, so he at least ought to be able to tell us that.

Dr. Stross: I hope that the Committee will allow me to ask one or two questions on the perfectly narrow point of the Money Resolution, and allow me to make a suggestion. We have heard today that since the Bill has been printed the amount of money which is likely to be received has been lessened with reference to the amount of money we are to have by way of receipts through the charging for dental treatment.
The sum by means of which it is lessened is £1 million, we have been told. That means that instead of £7,500,000—I presume the Minister agrees—he can receive only £6,500,000. On surgical instruments, he said he hoped to receive £250,000, whereas the original estimate, we gathered, had been put at £500,000. Am I right, from my simple arithmetic, in saying that already there is £1,250,000 less with reference to the outgoings? Does the Minister agree?
It is very difficult, in all the circumstances of the situation in which the country finds itself at present, to say how much will have to be handed over to the Assistance Board, and how much it, in turn, will have to pay out. For example, can we say how many people still in work may, as a result of the cost of living, have to go to the Assistance Board for help for some of the important aspects of this service? In other words, the original figure of £20 million—which was £7,500,000 from dental treatment, £12 million from the 1s. 0d. on each prescription, and £500,000 on surgical appliances—is beginning now to become attenuated.

The Chairman: These calculations of the sums may prove to be true, but in the Money Resolution no such sum is mentioned.

Dr. Stross: I think I have made the first part of my argument fairly clear, namely, that the amount of money hoped to be saved on the decision of the Minister is appreciably lessened, and we have a suspicion that it will be very much less still when it has to be, on the one hand, collected and, on the other hand, paid out.
Now comes my request on the Money Resolution. The Minister is empowered to do with the balance of this money—his gains, as it were—what he likes. I ask him to listen to this plea, which, I think, would make him fairly popular if he acceded to it. There is a paramount need for research inside this great service, and money has not yet been provided inside this service. Will he, therefore, consider reserving these gains on this Money Resolution purely for research to be expanded on any aspect of the service we are now considering?

The Chairman: That is not in order now.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. I think we are in this difficulty: that we ought to be entitled to know whether the sums under paragraph (a) will be greater or less than the sums under paragraph (b) because, if there is more money spent under (a) than is received by the Exchequer under (b), the whole purpose of the Bill will be at an end. My hon. Friend ought to be able to give us some figures, otherwise we do not know whether we are doing our duty in passing the Money Resolution or not.

The Chairman: It would be in order on the Second Reading, but not now.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Richard Adams: I agreed with the Minister of Health when he said just now that this Money Resolution is widely drawn. In fact, that is the very danger which we on this side of the Committee want to guard against. Therefore, before we pass this Money Resolution we should ask the Minister of Health to give a more definite assurance. I should have thought that this Money Resolution would have been much more satisfactory if it had contained in it a specific sum of money. As it is drawn, when the Bill goes into Committee it will be open to the Government to bring in Amendments which would increase the charges considerably and which would decrease the amount of money they want to pay out. Therefore, before we part with this Money Resolution, I want a more definite assurance from the Minister than we have had so far.
Now I want to turn to the question of the doctors, and I want to submit to you, Sir Charles, that this Money Resolution makes further provision
with respect to the making and recovery of charges in respect of services provided under the National Health Service Act, 1946 …
One of the things that the 1946 Act laid down was for a general practitioner service. And paragraph (a) of this Resolution refers to:
the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session ….
I suggest that since the general practitioner service is specifically covered by the 1946 Act, and since this Money Resolution dealing with the Bill which has just been before the House is in implementation and supplementation of the 1946 Act, we are perfectly in order in questioning how far that general practitioner service is to be affected by the proposal to pay the sum of £40 million to the doctors.

The Chairman: No, I do not see it that way at all. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Money Resolution, he will see that it says:
for the purposes of any Act of the present Session…
It is referring to this Bill when it becomes an Act. So that does not arise.

Mr. Adams: With great respect, Sir Charles, the Money Resolution makes further provision in regard to the 1946 Act, and the amount of the further provision that the House of Commons will be called upon to make will be determined in no small measure by the decision taken in regard to the payments to be made to the doctors. Therefore, I suggest that before we leave this Money Resolution it is most important—

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Money Resolution.

Mr. Adams: With great respect I suggest to you for your consideration, Sir Charles, that this Money Resolution deals with changes to be made in the 1946 Act and that as a result—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Money Resolution deals only with the increased charges that come under the National

Health Act, 1948, Section 6 (3). It does not refer to those other Acts which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Adams: I suggest that the Committee can only take note of the words contained in this Money Resolution, and that this Money Resolution states perfectly clearly that it is intended to make further provision in regard to the 1946 Act
and for purposes connected therewith …
I should have thought—

The Chairman: If the hon. Member would read the words before that, he will see that it says
… for the purposes of any Act of the present Session …

Mr. Adams: Perhaps I am not making myself very clear. Therefore, at the risk of detaining the Committee a little longer, I should try to make myself clear, because I am perfectly satisfied that it is essential that on this Money Resolution we should consider the doctors' fees in connection with the parent service and—

The Chairman: I have already said that that subject is out of order. We cannot discuss that on the Money Resolution, and I am not going to have it. If hon. Members persist in discussing it, I shall ask them to resume their seats.

Mr. Adams: If I make it perfectly clear that it is within the terms of the Resolution, you, Sir Charles, have said that you will not permit me to continue on the subject, so there is no point in continuing further in an effort to make myself clear.
I will leave that and will express the hope that since this Resolution is so widely drawn, so vague and so potentially dangerous, the Minister of Health will give us a further explanation of how he expects paragraph (a) to balance out with paragraph (b), because that is what we on this side of the Committee are most anxious to hear. Finally, I should like to draw attention to a further paragraph, which ought to be in the Money Resolution.

The Chairman: Before the hon. Member proceeds with that, I know that that is out of order.

Mr. Adams: That is out of order, so I should like to express my regret that the Under-Secretary of Scotland, in winding up for the Government on the Bill, said that one of the main purposes of the Bill was to restrict consumption in this country to encourage exports—

The Chairman: We cannot have that topic from the Second Reading on this Resolution.

Mr. Adams: I wanted to say, Sir Charles, that there is no Minister from Scotland here at the moment, and I think that is most unsatisfactory. I suggest that if the Minister who wound up was serious in his contention, that point should have been covered in the Money Resolution.

2.15 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I have been trying to follow this Money Resolution to the best of my ability and with such faculties as still remain to me after the lengthy Sittings of the House in the last day or two. I wish to understand what it is all about and to give the Minister of Health time in which to formulate such reply as he wishes to make.
It is common ground, I think, that we are discussing a Money Resolution. If that proposition is accepted—and all your Rulings, Sir Charles, have been directed to establishing it to the satisfaction of certain hon. Members who perhaps did not appreciate the full significance of what it is that we are discussing—then that brings me to the next point.
The Money Resolution purports to authorise two things. It would not be in order for me to discuss the wording of the Resolution, which says, "That it is expedient to authorise," for I take it that if I addressed a lengthy argument to the expediency or otherwise of the authority which this Money Resolution seeks to obtain, I might find myself out of order, because the expediency or the inexpediency of the authority which the Government are seeking to obtain might perhaps widen the debate to an area far wider than you, Sir Charles, would permit.
We come back to the fundamental question of the authorisation which the Minister of Health is asking us to give him. As has been made fairly clear by

one or two of my hon. Friends in the course of a large number of observations which were not quite in order, two kinds of authority are being requested by the Minister of Health. One is an authority to pay something in and the other is an authority to pay something out.

Mr. Ede: The other way round.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am sorry; my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) reminds me that I am putting them in the wrong order. I hasten to correct myself. So that there there should be no dubiety, let me put the point in its correct order. The two payments we are asked to authorise are, (a), a payment out and (b), a payment in. In each case, the Exchequer or public funds are obviously affected. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite clear."] I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall see daylight very soon.
Subjected as I am, I regret to say, to more interruptions from my own side of the Committee than from the other, I will try to introduce perhaps a little more luminosity into the discussion. Here we are, hon. Members of the House of Commons, entrusted with the task of acting as custodian of public funds, and in connection with our duties in that capacity we have to satisfy ourselves, in the discharge of our duties, that we are not either increasing or depleting public funds to any undue extent.
The first thought that occurs to me when I am asked to agree to payments out and payments in is what is the effect of it all to be? Shall we gain or lose on the deal? If the payments out exceed the payments in, then of course, to that extent public funds will be depleted. If, on the other hand, the payments in exceed the payments out, then the Exchequer will gain.
The object of the legislation to which we are being asked to agree is to save public funds. Therefore, unless I, and perhaps other hon. Members, can be satisfied that payments in will exceed payments out, we shall feel that the whole object of the proposed legislation will be either obstructed or frustrated.
I have tried to put the point as simply as possible. I hope that the Minister will give us this information and will not


shelter behind the formula which he is often so prompt to use, that the matter has not been discussed through the usual channels and therefore he cannot respond to pleas made to him by back-benchers. If a back-bencher finds himself in the usual channels, he often finds himself in a difficult situation.
Despite the difficulties that have been made for me, to some extent, I regret, by my hon. Friends who have impeded me in the discharge of my duties, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have had time to become seized of the point I have tried to make and will remove, in specific arithmetical terms, the doubts which many of us feel about this Money Resolution, which is fundamental to the Bill. Unless we know what it involves, the House will not know to what it has given a Second Reading and will be unable to appreciate the value or the disservice it may have rendered to the public by its decision.
I make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who, I am glad to see, has on more than one occasion nodded agreement with some of the things I have said. I hope that in the receptive mood in which he finds himself he will give us the information to which we are entitled to enable us to discharge our duties effectively as hon. Members.

Mr. Crookshank: It was because I realised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to information and needed it, that I made my observations before. I thought I had made myself quite clear but as long as I am not ruled out of order for repetition, I will be glad to say again what is involved.
As I already said, this Resolution is a very wide one and I am rather surprised and shocked that a Money Resolution should be thought to be too wide. The width of such Resolutions is something for which Private Members have fought for years and have now obtained.
It would be bad if it got about in Government circles that the Committee did not want them to be wide. We could go back to the old rules to our great inconvenience. Let us keep them wide. Although the Resolution is termed wide in that sense it deals with a very narrow point, but very widely, in that it does not put any limit or restriction on the amount of money which may be involved.
The trouble very often in the past was that a Money Resolution was drawn up and authorised merely certain sums, and therefore, when it came to the Committee stage, there was the question of the way in which the particular Clauses could be financially arranged. There is no limit of money here one way or the other. This is a very narrow point, because it deals only with the two points (a) and (b). I will get them in the right order to satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), and not do it wrong and then have to do it all over again.
Paragraph (a) relates to
the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase …
which is necessary for payments by the Assistance Board under existing Acts. It is quite impossible, of course, to make any estimate of what that might or might not involve. It depends on the number of people who might claim to have hardship. It depends on the view which the Assistance Board might take with regard to them or whatever contribution they wanted to make in cases where they were not going to pay in full. That figure, therefore, is obviously one which cannot be determined at the moment, but there is nothing to prevent its being all that is necessary for the purpose of relieving hardship. That is (a).
Paragraph (b), on the other hand, is merely the small point of actually paying into the Exchequer the cash sums which may be received as the result of charges which are not specified in the Resolution and which, therefore, come to be discussed later. I cannot say now what charges will be agreeable to the House in due course, but whatever the charges are which result in actual cash payments, those the Resolution authorises to be paid into the Exchequer. They are, I repeat, the charges which are proposed to be recovered by the hospital authorities.
Assuming that the suggestions I made this afternoon are those which finally emerge in legislative and regulation form, those would be the prescription charges for hospital out-patients and charges for hospital appliances, because those are the only ones in which cash will be involved. The other charges will, naturally, be arranged as a set-off in the payments and,


therefore, there will not be any question of any direct money coming into the Exchequer. This is only the question of the cash which arises from the outpatients section of the Bill.
I hope that I have cleared up any doubts in the hon. and gallant Member's mind—the matter is not as complicated as he found it—and that, therefore, now

we may have the Money Resolution and proceed to other business.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 139.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[2.29 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Llewellyn, D. T.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.


Amery, Julian (Proton, N.)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Arbuthnet, John
Frasor, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Moracambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gage, C. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)


Barber, A. P. L.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baxter, A. B.
Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gough, C. F. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Maclay, Hon. John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Black, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hay, John
Marples, A. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Braine, B. R.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hicks-Beach, Major W. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Mellor, Sir John


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar


Butcher, H. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Cole, Norman
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Redmayne, M.


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Douglas-Hamilton. Lord Malcolm
Lambton, Viscount
Robertson, Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Drewe, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson-Brown, W.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duthie, W. S.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Eccles, Rt. Han. D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fell, A.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas




Scott, R. Donald
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Teeling, W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Watkinson, H. A.


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wellwood, W.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Snadden, W. MCN.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Speir, R. M.
Tilney, John
Williams, Gerald (Tenbridge)


Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard
Touche, G. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stevens, G. P.
Turner, H. F. L.
Wills, G.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wood, Hon. R.


Storey, S.
Vosper, D. F.



Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, G. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Mr. Studholme and


Sutcliffe, H.
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Glanville, James
Oldfield, W. H.


Albu, A. H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley>


Ayles, W. H.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Paten, J.


Baird, J.
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rankin, John


Benn, Wedgwood
Hawitson, Capt. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Bowles, F. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Keenan, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Carmichael, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, G. O.


Champion, A. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cocks, F. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Coldrick, W.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Collick, P. H.
Lengden, Fred (Small Heath)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cook, T. F.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McInnes, J.
Tomney, F.


Daines, P.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wallace, H. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Weitzman, D.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Deer, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mikarde, Ian
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Field, W. J.
Monslow, W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Dr H. B. W.
Yates, V. F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)



Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forman, J. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D.
Mr. Hannan.


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

2.41 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: This is a very important Bill, and I was wondering whether anyone on behalf of the Government was going to move its Second Reading. I see the Secretary of State for War here, although I do not see any of the other sponsors of the Bill.
This is a Bill which concerns not only the Army and the Royal Marines—which is, I suppose, why the name of the First Lord is on the Bill—but also the Royal Air Force. I intended to congratulate the Government on the Bill they have introduced, but I must say that my congratulations are somewhat tempered by the fact that they have not even moved its Second Reading, or thought it even worth while to suggest to the House why it should be read a Second time.
One of the reasons why I believe that this is a good Bill, to take one typical example, is Clause 15, which repeals obsolete provisions of the Army and Air Force Acts. In previous Parliaments, for one reason or another, there was a great deal of legislation, and perhaps not enough attention was paid to the repeal of obsolete provisions. But in this Parliament, I understand, there is not the same pressure of legislation; it has therefore been possible for the Government to introduce a Bill to deal with these matters, and I think they are to be congratulated.
It is right that we should examine the Army and Air Force Acts carefully to see whether we should not follow the Government's example and, in Committee, seek to amend further obsolete provisions in these Acts to bring them up to date. For example, Section 104 of the Army Act is one which lays it down that a soldier shall not be billeted—
On persons who keep taverns only, being vintners of the City of London admitted to their freedom of the said company in right of patrimony or apprenticeship.
Again, they shall not be billeted—
In the house of any distiller kept for distilling brandy and strong waters.

That may or may not be justified in modern times. I do not know; but I think it is right that hon. Members in all parts of the House should consider whether, at a later stage, we should this year remove it from the Act.
Section 105 says that all officers and soldiers of the Regular Forces and all horses belonging to the officers of such Forces, for which forage is for the time being allowed by Her Majesty's regulations, shall be entitled to be billeted. Is that in keeping with modern conditions? I do not know. We have dozens of these Clauses, but I shall not detain the House long. These are only examples. Section 112 deals with the question of the impressment of carriages. It may be necessary in these days to provide for the impressment of carriages for regimental baggage and stores on the march. It does not go into the details. There is another one, Section 146, which, I think, should be examined because an officer of the Regular Forces cannot be elected to be the sheriff of any county. It does seem that requires examination under modern conditions.
I cite these only as examples of the things which should be examined by hon. Members on the Committee stage because we should follow the good example of the Government in going through the Army and Air Force Act and seeking to bring it up to date. We should not spoil a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I hope all hon. Members will follow the example of the Government, study the Act, and then bring forward suggestions at a later stage. We should not tonight reject the Bill, even if the Government does not think it worth while to move its Second Reading.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I think it is a little curious that the Secretary of State for War should take the trouble to come along here at this time of the morning and yet not find it advisable to make any explanation of this Bill, thereby necessarily prolonging the proceedings. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State decided not to move the Second Reading himself or to offer any explanation of the complicated provisions contained in it, and because he has not thought it worth while to open the debate and explain the character of the Bill, it is obviously necessary, if we are


to persuade him to speak, to address a large number of questions to him about it.
We have only a few days now before we reach the Committee stage of this very important Bill. During this period, if the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight, hon. Members will have the duty of drafting any Amendments they think are desirable to be inserted in it. In the first place, we have always been under the difficulty, in the discussion of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, that it is practically impossible to get a copy of the Army Act, to which this refers.
Some hon. Members may doubt that, but if any of them have been engaged in the last few days, as I have been, in trying to get an up-to-date copy of the Army Act, which is being amended by most of the Clauses produced in this Bill before us, they will find that it is almost impossible to do so. There is not one copy in the Library of the House, and it is not possible to get the volume of the parent Army Act in the Library of this House either. It is necessary to get down at least six volumes, starting with the Army Act, 1881.

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Swingler: If I understand the Bill correctly, Mr. Speaker—and I say this with all due respect to you—the pages after page 3 list Amendments to the Army Act and amendments to the Air Force Act, and refer to various Sections and subsections of the parent Measure. I take it that what we are being asked to approve or disapprove tonight is a variety of amendments, embodied in this Bill, to the parent Act, which has been amended on previous occasions. These amendments run from page 3 to page 23 of the Bill, with references to all the relevant Sections of the parent Act, which obviously hon. Members must look up if they are to understand all these amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The point about this Bill, which comes every year, is that a great number of things are not in order on Second Reading which are in order in Committee. I would refer the hon. Member to where this Bill is dealt with in the last edition of Erskine May—which, no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has ready by him.
I would also point out that on Second Reading of this particular Bill there are many things of a kind which would be in order on Second Reading of an ordinary Bill but which are out of order on Second Reading of this Bill; and, in general, the custom of the House in dealing with it has been not to allow on Second Reading matters which can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the hon. Member will bear that point in mind when addressing the House on this matter.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. I have not got Erskine May with me, Sir, but I have a Ruling by Mr. Speaker FitzRoy. Perhaps, it would be of help if I read one of the sentences of that. It dealt with the 1923 Bill, in which there were many things similar to those in this; and there was a great number, though perhaps not so many as there are in this Bill. Mr. Speaker FitzRoy was Deputy-Speaker at the time, and what he said was:
In explaining the principles of the Bill, I ought to have added that the various Clauses deal with amendments to the existing military law which governs the discipline in the Army and Air Force. It would be in order though not customary on Second Reading to discuss the actual amendments with which the different Clauses in this Bill deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1923; Vol. 162, c. 1031–2.)
As I understand, that is exactly what my hon. Friend is seeking to do.

Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that Bill myself, but, perhaps, as the hon. and learned Gentleman does not happen to have Erskine May by him, he will, I hope, take it that what I said is in Erskine May, in a short paragraph on this matter on page 720. I would myself adopt the other paragraph as the basis of my Ruling. The paragraph says:
On the second or third reading of an Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, debate on the general purposes of the army and air force is not permissible. The policy by which the army is administered, the enforcement of the existing army regulations and the conduct of troops in war, have been ruled out of order, and it has been held that the details of the conduct of proceedings before military courts of inquiry and the prices paid for the billeting of troops must be discussed in committee on the bill and not on its second reading.
The rest of the paragraph is not relevant to our purpose.
The House will, therefore, see that, with respect to this annual Bill, the usage of the House has been practically to withhold from debate on Second Reading


matters which can be dealt with in Committee. It is sensible if one thinks of it, because the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill covers a large number of very diverse matters referring back to the Army Act, and it is a matter for Committee discussion rather than Second Reading.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Perhaps I may make the point I want to make as a submission to you, Sir. I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of any parts of the Bill, which, as I understand from your Ruling, must be taken on the Committee stage. The point I want to make, which I believe would be in order at this stage, is whether this Bill is intelligible or not.
The question is whether we in the House are in a position to be able to discuss this Bill intelligently. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) has said, this Bill is rather more complicated than the previous ones, which date back for a long period, and there are many complicated provisions and amendments in it. We cannot get hold of any volume in this House in which the provisions of this Act are referred to. I have tried to do it today and it is impossible.

Mr. Speaker: That might concern me in my duties of general supervision over the Library, but it is not relevant to our discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Swingler: Perhaps I may put this point to you, Sir? This is the only point I wish to make. It seems to me that the time has come when we should consider whether this annual Bill, which must be produced for the purpose of continuing discipline in the Armed Forces, should not be made more intelligible and brought up to date so that we, the legislators of the nation, shall be in a position to see exactly, and in a single volume, what are the provisions governing discipline in the Armed Forces, instead of having to produce every year a document like the one in my hand with all its references and cross-references, making it necessary for any hon. Member who wishes to understand it to have recourse to a dozen volumes and innumerable pieces of paper.
It is made all the more difficult because this Bill runs from 30th April

to 30th April and is always produced under considerable pressure, immediately after the Budget. It comes at a most unfortunate period of the Parliamentary year. In my view, it is difficult to get down to all the complicated matters in the Bill and to undertake all the research which is required to be undertaken.
It is probable that only a minority of hon. Members are at all interested in going into this, but there are some hon. Members who are interested in trying to understand the Army Act. Indeed, there are some hon. Members who have come under Section 40 of the Act and would like to understand what it is all about. But, when we came here tonight, the Secretary of State did not even get up to explain what it is all about. He has no intention of doing so, apparently. It is extremely difficult to find facilities in this House whereby we can understand it. They may have these in the War Office, but they are not provided for hon. Members of this House.
Therefore, we shall have some difficulties on the Committee stage, if we are to fulfil our duties properly and go thoroughly through the Army Act, if we are unable to understand the Amendments which, probably quite rightly and desirably, the Secretary of State has brought forward. Unless we understand them properly, it will probably be necessary to prolong the proceedings when the Committee stage comes along.

2.59 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am not surprised, having endeavoured to study this Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not deemed it possible or politic to move the Second Reading and give us a few words of explanation. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has stated, that the legislation affecting the discipline in the Army is in a very complicated state.
My hon. Friend complained of the fact that he apparently could not get access to any compact edition of the Army Act as it applies today. It reminds me of those orderly rooms during the war where a very gallant attempt was made by an underpaid private or lance-corporal to keep the orderly room copy


of the King's Regulations up to date. The book used to finish up in rather an inchoate condition, covered with gum and festooned with large numbers of slips of papers, which duly fluttered in the breeze whenever the door or the window of the orderly room opened. It was quite impossible to close the book anyhow because of the dozens of insertions made in it.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by dealing with the points which, as Mr. Speaker has rightly said, can best be dealt with on the Committee stage. This Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is just a little different from other Army and Air Force (Annual) Bills which have been presented to the House in previous years. It introduces a comparatively large number of new Clauses, all of which merit the most careful scrutiny on the Committee stage.
There is this further point to be made. Whereas, in the old days, the contents of the Army and Air Force Bill affected only a comparatively small section of the population, when we had only a small Regular Army and no National Service or conscription, today it may well affect for good or ill the lives of millions of men and women. The bulk of the adult male population of military age and of reasonable physical fitness are now concerned by the legislation we are considering. That is why it will be necessary for hon. Members on the Committee stage to give this Bill rather more careful scrutiny than it received in years gone by.
No doubt in the course of our discussions at a later stage we shall be able to help the Secretary of State for War out of some of the difficulties in which he now finds himself, because he has not had the opportunity of studying the Bill. He does not know what it contains, and he naturally expected that he would not have to acquaint himself with the details, because, of course, of the Ruling that Mr. Speaker has given, the tradition being that the Secretary of State for War is not expected to know anything about this annual Bill, for which he is technically responsible.
I hope that he will apply himself to such Amendments as some of us may find it necessary to put down for the Committee stage, for they will enable him to clarify the position not only to

his own advantage but to the advantage of the men serving in the Forces, whose daily lives will be affected by the contents of the Bill. In those circumstances, to allay the anxieties of the Secretary of State, I should like to assure him that, subject to the observations that he may have to make before the House proceeds to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I do not feel disposed at the moment to ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on the Motion before us.
I hope that, having held out the hand of peace and friendship, as it were, the Secretary of State may find it possible to give us the benefit of a few observations on the subject before we agree to the Second Reading.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in the debate, if for only one purpose—that of very sincerely congratulating the Secretary of State for War. This is a very valuable innovation. Normally when we come to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, we come to Clauses 1 and 2, but the right hon. Gentleman has given us another 16 Clauses and, therefore, has on this occasion produced a Bill very different from that which we usually consider.
One of your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, in the old days of the Irish Party, ruled that all that could be discussed on the first two Clauses of this Bill was not whether there should be an Army or not but, having decided that there should be an Army, whether it should be disciplined or not. Mr. Parnell said that in his view that was quite sufficient to enable hon. Members to carry on a debate for a considerable time.
But I am not directing myself to those two Clauses at all. The remarks I want to make very briefly are directed to the last 16 Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly set down one very long Clause which is the repeal, practically, of Part II and the re-drafting of Part II of the Army Act, and that is not only a wise but a very bold thing to do—bold because I am surprised that he has persuaded the Leader of the House to let him embark on anything like this degree of review of the Act.
If the right hon. Gentleman feels that we should take this course, I and my right hon. Friends will join with him in seeing what we can do to help him in the task. It is a long time—1923, I think—since we have had a Clause to this extent, and it would be wrong if the House, in Committee, were not to go thoroughly into the questions which the Clause raises.
Some of my hon. Friends have chided the right hon. Gentleman for not getting up to speak, but I think he was motivated by proper motives. He realises that it is late and that if he were to open the debate now he might detract from the Committee stage, because he would be dealing in general with the principle of these Clauses, and I agree that it is far better that we should devote ourselves to that on the Committee stage and when we are fresh and have an opportunity of going into these matters one by one.
I want to call attention to one or two points which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at again to see whether, between now and the Committee stage, he will not himself set down some Amendments. There is in the Bill what at first I thought was an attempt to redefine the horse in terms of the modern military approach, but I see now that it is not; it is to leave out an expression which tends to make the description of a horse rather complicated. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at one or two other things in the Act, he will find that a declaration is defined as "a declaration." That cannot be a reasonable way of proceeding, and I think he might see whether he can continue a good deal of the good work he is doing here by considering such matters as that.
I and some of my hon. Friends will put down Amendments to deal with other points in the Act—the references to the Dominions are askew, for instance—and when he sees our Amendments I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that they are all improvements and will approach the problem in the same spirit as ourselves, to see whether there are any points which we have overlooked. We can then have this full review of the Act to which he has opened the way by putting down these 16 Clauses.
I want to say a few words on behalf of my right hon. Friends on our Front Bench. Some of us have, perhaps, chided them for not taking this step earlier. The difficulty of the late Government was that until court-martial procedure was reformed it was not possible to go in for any wholesale revision of the Act. What we are now engaged in is the second stage. We have been engaged in reforming the part dealing with courts-martial. Now we can examine the various offences.
What is the point of reforming courts-martial if one does not reform the Statutes that administer them? There is no one who will not welcome the initiative and courage which the right hon. Gentleman has shown during a Session of crowded business in insisting that the House should consider these important issues of how best to reform the Army Act. I hope that the Bill will receive a speedy Second Reading and that we shall soon be able to get on to the Committee stage and there, more leisurely, examine points one by one.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I wish I could have joined my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) in congratulating the Secretary of State in not saying a word about this Bill, but as it repeals the whole of Part 2 of the main Act and alters the terms of enlistment, and as the Secretary of State is on record as one who is keen on making the Army attractive, it would have helped the House if he had said a word about the new principles which form the new Part 2.
It would not be proper if I said anything critical about the Library service, but it is regrettable that there is no up-to-date copy of the Army Act available in the Library. It is even more regrettable that the copy which one obtains from the Vote Office is amended only up to the passing of the National Service Act, 1949.
I would not say much about it if this were only a Bill of two Clauses, but when the Secretary of State is going as far as he is, it is important that hon. Members should have a copy of the Act. If he says nothing about the provisions of the Bill now, the Committee stage will have to be rather lengthy, because we


shall have to explore what he has in mind. I am not one of the right hon. Gentleman's admirers and I am not prepared to take on trust the things he offers.
A cursory examination shows clearly that what he and the Government are doing is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The House is the custodian of the liberties of the individual, whether he wears civilian clothes or khaki. It is the duty of each Member to satisfy himself that the young men who are being conscripted should be able to see what the Minister is up to.
Taking the latest Act available, it is impossible to examine the Bill and to be completely sure that any amendment is up to date. We shall have lengthy proceedings on the Committee stage and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see if he can make available to hon. Gentlemen who are interested a copy of the Act which is completely up-to-date.

3.14 a.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I should like to assure the House that I intended no discourtesy by not making a speech when the Bill was introduced for Second Reading.
I find myself pleasantly in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that the Bill is a series of unconnected provisions, each of which is better discussed on the Committee stage. Every precedent suggests that that is the most satisfactory procedure. I think hon. Members will agree that to make a Second Reading speech on a series of disjointed matters would be no great asset before the Committee stage. Inherent in some of the remarks by hon. Members was the suggestion that, although they agree that at this stage they could be brief, on the Committee stage they would be somewhat less brief.
The Bill is, I assure the House, of importance to the Army. It changes the terms of enlistment, and I do not think that any hon. Member, on either side of the House, would wish to go against the general principle of the long-service engagement which the Bill makes possible. Hon. Members will not at this stage wish me to answer most of the points that were made. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) was fortunate in that if I were now to try to answer some of the remarks he made before you, Sir,

were in the Chair, I believe that I should be out of order.

Mr. Ede: Have a try.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member will be able to raise his points about brandy, billeting and horses when we get to the Committee stage.
I have noted the point about the availability of the Army Act, and if the Librarian of the House has any difficulty I am sure that the War Office will do their best to help. I assure hon. Members that there is in the Bill provision for printing the Army Act in future, which, for succeeding generations, should obviate any difficulty in that direction.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Butcher.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMAS, AUDENSHAW

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Audenshaw, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

3.17 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Orders of this kind are always affirmative Orders. Nobody ever takes them up. Possibly it is a mistake to have them as affirmative Orders, but as we have them as affirmative Orders perhaps we might make a spot check on this occasion and ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to tell us the percentage of people who voted at the poll at Audenshaw, whether the usual statutory formalities were complied with, what date the inquiry was held, and what were the actual figures in the vote.
Obviously, if the House is to exercise any jurisdiction in these matters we ought to know whether this is a mere decision of a minority of people of the town in question, or whether there was a considerable number who bothered to record their opinions one way or the other. It is of some importance that the House


should know these things, because when we have Orders like this it makes nonsense of our procedure if we are not in a position to have the information which, obviously, the House ought to have if it is to proceed with matters of this sort.

3.18 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I take it that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the 1936 Act?

Mr. Bing: Yes.

Mr. de Freitas: Under the 1936 Act, as the Under-Secretary of State so well knows, not only is this procedure to be followed but—and this is a point which has been of interest in recent years—in some cases, immediately after the war, polls were taken which went against Sunday cinemas. In the last year or so, however, it was decided to hold further polls and the decision went in favour of Sunday cinemas. That is why the Home Secretary has laid this and other Orders before the House.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will follow the practice of recent times in letting us know whether there has been a change in the opinion of the people in the communities concerned. If, a few years ago, they voted against Sunday cinemas and are now in favour of them, we should know what has been the passage of time between the two votes and any other relevant matters.

3.19 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The decision of the meeting held at Audenshaw under the Act was in favour of the proposal. A poll was, however, demanded by more than 100 voters, and was taken on 3rd December, 1951. There were 933 votes in favour of the proposal, and 466 against. The total number of local government electors of the urban district is 9,340, of whom only about 15 per cent. voted. I think that that is a full answer to the questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
As regards the question of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), this is a case where there was a previous poll which went against the making of

the Order. In fact, the previous poll was taken some two years ago, and the result is now reversed by the figures which I have quoted. There is no precedent in this case. There is nothing in the Act which provides that any period must elapse before the machinery can be put into operation again. There have been a number of instances in the last few years in which a previous negative has been subsequently reversed. This creates no precedent, and I think that the House will be fully satisfied that everything that is necessary has been done.

3.21 a.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) suggested that it was unusual to challenge an Order of this kind, but I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will recollect that on one occasion he challenged me, when I was Home Secretary, in connection with the City of Peterborough which had applied for one of these Orders. We therefore have a most exalted precedent for the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend. I congratulate the Under-Secretary upon the clarity with which he read the brief that is usually provided by the Home Office on these occasions.

Mr. de Freitas: Was it not in connection with an Order for Pontefract that the noble Lord challenged my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Ede: No, it was Peterborough, because the noble Lord asked me which way the Deans of Peterborough had voted, and I had to assure him that there was only one Dean and that he voted by ballot.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Audenshaw, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Cudworth, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.


That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wombwell, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Sir. H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Orders of the Day — COUNCIL HOUSES (TENANTS' RIGHTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

3.22 a.m.

Mr. William A. Steward: Even at this late hour I am glad to have the opportunity of raising a matter which has for some time been of great concern to me—namely, the rights of tenants of council houses. Today with the ever-increasing number of people living in council houses, the time has come when greater consideration should be given to the rights of tenants.
For example, on the L.C.C. estates alone there are about 130,000 dwellings. I wish to deal, first, with the problem which is the concern of many tenants in the Woolwich and Eltham areas of my constituency and, I have no doubt, throughout the L.C.C. area and the boroughs of this country. That problem deals with the right of the main tenant to select his own sub-tenant should he wish. I submit that when the main tenants wish to have their married children to live with them as sub-tenants, the approval of the council should be automatic.
How many years have we to go back to find a parallel in history of a father and mother being denied the right to offer a home and shelter to their children? As the House knows, the practice is to refuse this right on penalty of eviction. I also consider that where widows or widowers have lived in their houses for many years, and, therefore, are well-known in the district, and they wish to sub-let part of their house—as they often do for the sake of companionship—they should be allowed to do so and they should be allowed to choose their sub-tenant.
I could give many examples of main tenants being threatened with eviction by the local council for refusing to turn their sub-tenants out into the street. It will be appreciated that, by threatening the main tenants, the council put the sub-tenants in an invidious position. In

these enlightened days, it is quite wrong for a council house tenant to be treated as the occupant of part of a block of barracks. Surely the tenants themselves are the best judges whether or not they can take in sub-tenants, if it means a little inconvenience to them? Too often a knock on the door of a council house today is in many respects equivalent to a visit from the secret police in certain other countries, because it can be the forerunner of being thrown into the street without a home, of a husband being parted from his wife and family, and of a family, through the generosity of a callous borough council official, being dumped in a rest centre with a mattress on the floor as a bed.
I submit that it is outrageous that tenants of council houses should go in daily fear of eviction for doing what any hon. Member would do in similar circumstances, namely, offer shelter to others in distress during a period of acute housing shortage. I am well aware of the councils' views on this question; they are afraid that the sub-tenants might jump the queue and become the main tenants out of turn. Of course, there may be cases where this might happen, but are we to take the attitude that all men are rogues unless proved to the contrary? Are we also to take up the attitude that our council estates must be "dressed by the right"? A borough cemetery is orderly, but no hon. Member would suggest that it is the acme of individual freedom.
In my view, all tenants should have the right to sub-let rooms to their children on marriage, or the children to the parents, elderly relatives and dependants and needy friends and acquaintances. They should have complete freedom of choice. The fear of weekly inspections by the council's officer should be removed. There is no reason why a council house should not be the tenant's "Englishman's castle."
I wish to make the further plea that council house tenants should have the right to ensure the individuality of the houses in which they live. For example, if a tenant wishes to paint his window-frames and doors blue or red, why should he not be allowed to do so, or is it so important that the windows and doors of the houses on these estates should all be the same colour? Many hon. Members will remember the old days in the


Services, when the whitewashing was the most important part of any inspection. Let us not whitewash our estates, but give freedom to the main tenant to do as he likes with his house, provided that it is within reason, that he bears the cost and pays his rent regularly.
I am told that, in many cases, the tenant is not allowed to put up any form of outhouse or fence for fear that the uniformity of the estate is impaired. Surely these estates are intended as homes for the people and not as State prisons? Hon. Members will know countless stories about the points system being administered unfairly and of applicants being given houses out of their turn. I think there is a good case for the setting up of a housing committee quite independent of the borough council, and consisting of well-known and respected local persons.
If this is considered too difficult, why cannot an applicant have the right to state his case to the housing committee in person, thereby satisfying himself that he has had a fair hearing? I feel that a system such as this would remove a great deal of the discontent which exists today. I should like to suggest that there should be some form of regional housing appeal board so that an applicant who feels that his case has not had due consideration may have the right of appeal.
Only the other day a case came to my notice of a soldier, the father of two children, of the name of Robshaw, whose home is in my constituency, and who had recently returned from Korea. He was one of the "gallant Gloucesters". One would have thought that such a hero's case would have melted the heart of even the toughest of borough council officials. But not so. His application was put back 12 months, the staggering reason given being "owing to his service overseas." He had been in Korea 15 months. I submit that this is the kind of case which justifies an appeal to an appeals board or a personal appearance before a housing committee. The decision arrived at in this case was, in my submission, contrary to the directive in the Minister's Circular 8/52, dated 31st January of this year.
A further point. Is there any reason why applicants should not be told the

number of points they have at any particular time? Could not the group of points being dealt with by the council be advertised monthly in the local Press so that those who were anxiously waiting for a home could get some kind of hope that their case was getting nearer being dealt with. I fully appreciate that points are not everything, and that often need overtakes them.
In many cases this means that applicants who have waited six or seven years—and there are a great number—because they have no children are rated lower in the needs scale. In many cases the fact is that many sensible far-seeing would-be parents feel that the accommodation for them is not good enough in which to bring up children. Therefore, need is surely relevant to the circumstances of each case. A married couple without children may, because they want to have children, have a need for a house just as much as a married couple with one child.
I now want to make a plea for the engaged couple wanting to get married. In many cases it is tragic that many people are not allowed to be entered on the housing list until they are actually married, and they have to wait years before getting the house they want. There is only one way for them to get a house, and that is to get married and have a couple of children as quickly as possible: then the housing authority will look at them. I realise the difficulties in coping with this great problem, but cannot something be done to allow couples to go on the housing waiting list from the date of their engagement? In my submission, the present system encourages unmarried tenants, of whom there are many, and illegitimate children.
In dealing with this question of date and length of time to qualify to get on the borough housing list, is the Minister aware that this qualification varies between boroughs, even in the London area? For example, I understand that an applicant for a council house in Lewisham must have been a resident of that borough for five years. In the Borough of Woolwich, the residence qualification is, I understand, one year. In West Ham, the right to get on the housing list is on the male qualification only, whereas in Woolwich male or female qualification is accepted. Does


not the Minister agree that unequal discrepancies of this nature mean that some boroughs tend to get over-full waiting lists at the expense of others?
This leads me to suggest that there should be a Government inquiry into the administration and allotment of council house tenancies, for unless they are put on a national basis we are bound to get the anomalies I have described. I am fully aware that under the 1936 Housing Act the administration of our housing estates is a matter for local authorities, and that this also applies to the vexed question of sub-tenants.
The fact that the Central Housing Advisory Committee have drawn the attention of councils to many of the matters I have raised tonight makes me feel the Government should consider taking further action. Personally, I should like to see some form of "Tenants' Charter," to ensure that the tenant, as well as the council, has some rights, and that they are brought into line with the rights enjoyed by a private tenant with his landlord. I submit that we must ensure in our housing drive that council houses being built are for individuals to live in and are not just units of accommodation. I believe that, by giving a sense of increased responsibility to tenants and giving them rights, greater pride will be taken by them in the houses on these estates and that they will become better and happier citizens.

3.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) for bringing this subject to its attention. I would also congratulate him on the assiduity with which he pursues his housing and food problems. I always associate him with food and housing, two of the most essential things with which he deals.

Mr. Charles Pannell: And the prices of meals are increasing.

Mr. Marples: I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he looks after his constituency and brings London's housing problem to the attention of the House. While I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) in his place,

I only wish that he had with him a colleague from the London area, so that he would have taken an interest in Woolwich problems and those of the adjoining boroughs.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that very near to where I live is the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West. I have lived there for many years and I wanted to see what sort of a job he was going to make of this debate.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is fortunate to be living near my hon. Friend, who represents the Woolwich, West, constituency so well. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, West, is not a constituent of my hon. Friend, for then perhaps he would be better represented than he is at the moment.
Before I answer some of the detailed points, may I say that if my hon. Friend will let me have details of the soldier to whom he referred it may be we will write a letter to the local authority to see if we can help in any way, or, at any rate, go into the details of that particular case. My hon. Friend dealt largely with matters in his constituency, and the particular matters which affect him, but I think it would be better, in my reply, if I concentrated on the general aspect.
The difficulty is that the local authority has laid upon its shoulders by statute the task of deciding who shall be the tenant. The statute refers also to the management of the property. Without altering that legislation, it would be difficult to effect some of the things suggested, and it would be out of order, in an Adjournment debate, to discuss legislation.
The basic aim of my hon. Friend was to call attention to some of the anomalies which exist between different districts, and that is a very worthy aim. In the Ministry, we only advise and it is up to the local authorities to select tenants and to manage the property. I want to say this to any local authority representative present. We realise what a thankless task it is to decide between the competing needs of tenants, especially in times of acute housing shortage. In some cases, the tenants do tend to over-state their cases and it is not easy for the local authority to sift the facts.
I would like to answer one or two of the points which were raised. The first point was on the question of sub-tenants. My hon. Friend said tenants should be more free to take in sub-tenants, and that where a tenant is prepared to take in a married son or daughter the local authority should offer no objection, even though, perhaps, the family might be crowded for space. I would refer him to the fact that a local authority has the power, if it wants, to permit sub-letting at the moment, and I hope that this debate will call local authorities' attention to the fact that they can sub-let when, in suitable cases, they wish to do so.
Not only have they the power under statute, but post-war reports, one of them by the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, were commended to the local authorities by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, suggesting that local authorities should continue to give permission for taking-in lodgers or subletting accommodation. My right hon. Friend, in Circular 24/52, has urged local authorities to take in lodgers where it is appropriate. I hope this debate will draw their attention to that Circular, and that they will read it again.
My hon. Friend referred to sub-tenants being turned out into the street. The question of the sub-tenant taking over the main tenancy, when the main tenant either moves or dies, is not an easy one, because it is not unknown for a subtenant to move into a council house deliberately with the object of securing the tenancy when the main tenant leaves, and by doing that, of course, to jump the queue. Obviously, if a person who has not any need of a house goes in as a sub-tenant, it is wrong that the main tenancy should be given to that person while a person at the top of the housing list may be in more urgent need of accommodation.
Therefore, I think it would be dangerous to say that a sub-tenant shall automatically have the right to a main tenancy. Most local authorities do try, at any rate, to make it a condition, when allowing sub-tenants, that, if the main tenant moves, the sub-tenant should not have possession. I hope that the local authorities will make it clear beyond a

peradventure that, if they do allow sub-tenancies, the sub-tenant will not move automatically into possession. If the main tenant leaves the sub-tenant should be on the housing list. If his need is great, he will be given a house.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Does the Ministry's circular give any advice to local authorities whether or not they should charge extra rent, which, in some cases, is known as "lodger's tax?".

Mr. Marples: That is really left to the discretion of the local authority, but if there were greater wear and tear on the house, and the main tenant was getting a substantial rent from the lodger or subtenant, it might, in appropriate cases, not be unreasonable for an extra contribution to be made for the extra wear and tear and deterioration of the property which follows from having more people in a house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West, also referred to the question of the selection of tenants. I often read in the newspapers how various critics try to select an association football team. I have never yet seen the same names of the team printed in all the various papers. Selecting tenants is often harder than selecting a football team to represent England, because there are so many tenants in so many different circumstances in so many different districts. Each district differs in some respects from the rest. I think it is best that the selection of tenants should be left to the local authorities who are elected, and not to a committee which is appointed.
My hon. Friend suggested that a committee should be appointed to go into the selection of tenants, and, to some extent at any rate, to replace the local authority; but it is much better that the democratically elected local authority should select the tenants, because first, they have the local knowledge which is necessary, and second, it has to submit itself to the electors for re-election. If there are any grave scandals in a district, I feel that they would make themselves felt at the next election.

Mr. Steward: May I point out that the method of getting on a housing list rests with one official employed by the council, and that it is left to his discretion as to what names go before it?

Mr. Pannell: If that is within the experience of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, it is not within mine. I have been a member of a local authority, and I feel sure the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will pay a reasonable tribute to the members of local authorities who carry out their onerous duties fearlessly and well. I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, is speaking from a rather limited experience.

Mr. Marples: If I may intervene in the debate which is going on between the two hon. Members, I want to say that, broadly, the local councilors take charge of their housing problems, the paid official is acting under the housing committee as a rule and the housing committee acts under the local council. There may be cases where a very able and industrious official takes charge of perhaps some councillors, but it should not be so. If my hon. Friend has any example in mind, perhaps we could intervene usefully with a little advice. But I can assure him that over the country generally the local councillors are in charge.
My hon. Friend said that the qualifications for admission to the housing lists vary in different parts and that there is discontent with the results of the selection of tenants. He mentioned Lewisham, where they have a five-year residential qualification, and Woolwich, where they have a one-year residential qualification. It would be a good idea if local authorities whose boundaries adjoin each other would get together and consult about making their rules for tenants, so that there should not be any great discrepancy between the two.
We have suggested that such consultation in some cases is wise because, otherwise, the local authority which imposes a small number of restrictions tends to have a larger housing list than the local authority which imposes a large number of restrictions. Therefore it would be a good idea if Lewisham and Woolwich, and perhaps some adjoining local authorities, would try to get nearer to each other's conditions if possible.
My hon. Friend suggested that the applicant should appear before the committee. I think it might be a good idea in some cases, but it would be very bad if the applications of one family were

heard by another family which was on the housing list. In my experience it is a good idea for housing committees not to discuss cases by name but by number. Then the personal element does not enter into the calculation and the allotment of houses is decided on merit.
It is not always safe to let applicants appear in person because a house may then go to the most eloquent instead of the most needy. Some people who need a house are not able to express themselves except in private, and when it comes to appearing before a formidable committee they become terrified by the searching questions which are put, as I should be if I attended before a committee on which the hon. Member for Leeds, West, appeared. I do not think, therefore, that it would be a good idea if in every case the applicant appeared before the committee.
My hon. Friend made an extremely good point about the housing lists and the method of allotting points being well known in the district. I believe that half the rumours which circulate among council applicants and tenants would be avoided if local authorities would proceed on the method of giving publicity to their system of allotting houses. I remember that when I was in the Army we never knew where we were going or what we were doing. On one occasion the officers had a very good operation to perform and it meant moving from one point to another. They would not tell anyone about it. Before I became an officer I was a regimental sergeant-major, I found that the best way to interpret the Army Act was to stand on a soap box and tell everyone what was going on. It was not scientific, but it was effective.
I would suggest that housing committees should do something like the same thing. It is much better for people to know what is the exact position. I would refer local authorities, in this connection to a booklet of the old Ministry of Health about the selection of housing tenants, where it says:
Nothing undermines the confidence of applicants in any method of selection more surely than the suspicion that personal influence can affect anyone's prospects of obtaining a house.
It goes on:
It is, therefore, desirable that the fullest possible explanation of the method of selection should be given to all applicants, showing


what factors are taken into account in selecting tenants. … Many authorities have found it an aid to impartial selection to consider applications under a code number instead of by name.
Then they recommend every local authority to take steps appropriate to their area and acquaint the public of the method adopted for the selection of tenants. I should like to call the attention of local authorities to this excellent book, which is prepared by a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee.
The question of the painting of houses has to be divided into two parts, the inside and the exterior. I believe that a tenant should do what he likes inside the house, painting it red, green or blue if any of those colours expresses his individuality. A large number of local authorities make paint available for that

purpose. But the care of the exterior should be left to the local authority because they are better aware of local conditions. In some areas the variety of colours suggested by my hon. Friend might not be welcomed by the inhabitants of the district.
In the few moments that remain I should like again to thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject, which, I know, is very close to his heart. I hope that the remarks which I have made will be read by his local authority.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes to Four o'Clock a.m.